Diaw/Amare suspended 1 game, Horry suspended 2 games

[ThomasPHoolery]

[ QUOTE ]
Thomas - you honestly think, after watching the incident, based on what Amare and Diaw did... they should be suspended for a game for these actions?

And Baron Davis should be allowed to play after his forearm shiver?

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think Baron should be allowed to play. I think the league has done an awful, awful awful job this playoffs and last at dispensing fair, uniform punishment for incidents.

My point is, in this situation, I think Stern's point is that the spirit and letter of the law align here, and there may need to be some changes in the both. Everyone is right, there should be a grey area that grades altercations, but the league owners have time and again said that they feel that leaving the bench during an altercation is completely unacceptable behavior. In the league's mind, if they admit that an incident happened, the owners and the rules committee have decided that a certain action must be taken. It's draconian, it needs to be reexamined, but that's not Stern's job to make that decision, and I'm glad he didn't.

The league this playoffs has once made another decision in a matter like this that got no discussion but I thought was even worse. Jason Richardson got fined 35K for inappropriate interactions with a Dallas fan. Now, I have no idea what happened there. I have no idea if Richardson should have been fined, suspended or nothing, but according to the letter of the rules, IF the league is going to say that something, anything happened between Richardson and a fan, Richardson must be suspended. They didn't, and i don't know why-- it might have been to not disrupt the competitive balance of a series, which I think is an awful reason to make a decision. Most likely, no action should have been taken, but the league going against its policy and determining there was a gray area there was wrong, and I think it would be wrong in this case too.

Look at the rule, fine. Change it, fine. But I think Stern feels that the letter and spirit both compel him to make this decision. The NBA reffing and rule situation needs to be fixed, but making an ad hoc decision to fix it by enforcement instead of fixing it by statute is absolutely wrong in my mind.

[Aloysius]

Thomas - good post man. Although the one place I must quibble:

[ QUOTE ]
My point is, in this situation, I think Stern's point is that the spirit and letter of the law align here, and there may need to be some changes in the both.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a contradictory statement - if the spirit and letter align in this instance, there's no need for changes, right?

If you see a post of mine above, even Stern admits this is probably not a "fair" decision.

That's really my only contention. I'm irritated Stern is hurting the Suns championship run, but I'm more annoyed that he can't take a common-sense, arbitrator's approach to what is a no-brainer situation and decision. To truly align the spirit and letter of the law, make this exception today, and revisit the ruling during the off-season with owners.

-Al

[ThomasPHoolery]

Al,
I was unclear with that part, so I'll try to explain it. From what I understand, the spirit of the law is that, in order to prevent any incident from unnecessarily escalating, the best method of enforcement is a blanket restriction on players making a movement towards the court or the incident. I really do think that the spirit that the owners have wanted is a spirit that there is no grey area here. The letter of it lines up.

The question is, should the owners reassess the underlying spirit. Namely, is a blanket, unequivocal enforcement the best way to prevent situations from escalating? That's something I hope they do reconsider, and change their mind on what they think is the best method to achieve their desired goal.

Hope that makes it clear as mud.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
don't forget--the refs aren't racist either. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

word man.. they awarded a big thuggish negro for beating down on a little white cracka.

[AzDesertRat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
don't forget--the refs aren't racist either. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

word man.. they awarded a big thuggish negro for beating down on a little white cracka.

[/ QUOTE ]

3 actually. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Ralph Wiggum]

[ QUOTE ]
The rule explicitly says within the vicinity. Duncan was 5 feet in front of the bench.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jalen Rose said he was suspended for being 1 step on the court in a Pacers-Bulls altercation years ago, but was 94ft from the incident. Duncan was inside the 3pt line.

[Ralph Wiggum]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Exactly please explain this. And if you say it is because there was no altercation then please explain how it makes sense that Duncan would have been suspended if Jones punched Elson but he isnt now.

[/ QUOTE ]

During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench.

If player is at point A, which is within the immediate vicinity of the bench but may actually be on the floor, an altercation starts, and a player remains at point A, player has not violated the rule.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, I don't know what the rule is. Is this it? If not, anyone have it verbatim?

[RunDownHouse]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as the incorrect conclusion, I just hate that line of thinking. I like Stern's. It's not rewarding the perpetrator, it's punishing those that broke the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you got to this in the last sentence of your post, but if Stern's using this argument, then he's also derelict in his larger duty, that of protecting the interests of the league. I haven't seen one person defend the suspension in terms of, "This will make the NBA better." It not only will not improve the league, it'll actively hurt it. Stern should have taken a different course of action because sticking with this absurd rule made the NBA worse.

[Boris]

Stern is such a little bitch. First he makes Stu Jackson deliver what he knows will be a very unpopular message. Then he cancels his planned attendance at tonight's game in Phoenix.

[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Al,
I was unclear with that part, so I'll try to explain it. From what I understand, the spirit of the law is that, in order to prevent any incident from unnecessarily escalating, the best method of enforcement is a blanket restriction on players making a movement towards the court or the incident. I really do think that the spirit that the owners have wanted is a spirit that there is no grey area here. The letter of it lines up.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is grey area for Tim Duncan who was on the court because he was ready to intervene in a potential altercation, because it didn't become one. There is no grey area for Stoudemire because the potential altercation actually became one.

Imagine an NBA rule that a player who reacts in any manner after a foul call is suspended for the next game. Players would be coached not to react, but sooner or later an important player in an important series would react despite their coaching. They'd quickly recover but it would be too late and they'd be out. It would be a horrible rule because no human being can control every emotional reaction every time, it would be destined to fail and embarrass the league. The punishment would be outrageous for the offenders who simply roll their eyes or gesticulate, while it wouldn't be enough for those who attack the official physically.

This rule on leaving the bench is almost as silly. In Stoudemire's case, he had a human reaction, but was caught before he did anything. The confrontation didn't escalate into a fight, in fact, it hardly merits the term altercation (two guys jawing at each other). The NBA should be able to lessen the punishment when there isn't a fight, when the guy who leaves the bench doesn't get close to the "altercation", etc.

But the NBA apparently gave Stu Jackson no ability to take mitigating circumstances, which is stupid. And Stern has the ability to override Stu for the good of the game, but won't, which is even worse.