Suns vs. Spurs

[Gonzo]

You wanna post articles backing your claims? Fine.

http://sports.aol.com/whitlock/_a/if-spurs-roll-on-suns-have-themselves-to/20070517102409990001

I can understand the defense that a rule is a rule regardless of it's value. However, I can't understand defending the rule itself for a couple of reasons. First, how is a one game suspension justified for a split second decision that doesn't result in violence? It doesn't take intent (oh, wait, yes it does! More on that later), nor actions into account. These players saw their team leader fouled hard by a washed up piece of garbage right in front of them. The spurs wouldn't do the same thing if they watched Tim Duncan get the **** knocked out of him right in front of their bench? I think them leaving the bench earlier when an altercation was definetly possible is proof enough that they would, as nearly any close-knit team in the NBA would. Of course, you'll say they wouldn't because you are a spurs fan and they can do no wrong.

Now, back to the topic of intent. I must be the only one who has access to Stu's previous rulings on this exact same rule, though I find that odd because Google is open to the public and it only takes about 3 seconds to find. I'm gonna post it again because I have yet to hear a valid response to it. So far, everyone who has defended it has essentially said it's a black and white rule not open for interpretation...unless you need to decide what is and isn't an altercation, which is determined by whether you are on the Spurs or not apparently.

In response to this rule in the Lakers-Kings fight in 2002:
NBA vice president Stu Jackson said. "In this circumstance, our judgment was that the players who left the bench were attempting to break up the fight and did not escalate the altercation.''

Apparently intent comes into play and we have no idea what the intent was, assuming the rule hasn't changed since 2002. If it were black and white as they now claim, those players would have been suspended. Here be the link:
http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2002/1028/1452258.html

Oh wait, that fight included the league's other golden boys, the lakers. I have no doubt that if it had been, say, Gino that was body checked in front of the spurs bench and Duncan got up (which, given his earlier response, he probably would have), it would have only been to "attempt to break up the fight and not escalate the altercation." :rolleyes2

 

[The Confessor]

Zing

 

[DuderinoN703]

I can understand the defense that a rule is a rule regardless of it's value. However, I can't understand defending the rule itself for a couple of reasons. First, how is a one game suspension justified for a split second decision that doesn't result in violence? It doesn't take intent (oh, wait, yes it does! More on that later), nor actions into account. These players saw their team leader fouled hard by a washed up piece of garbage right in front of them. The spurs wouldn't do the same thing if they watched Tim Duncan get the **** knocked out of him right in front of their bench? I think them leaving the bench earlier when an altercation was definetly possible is proof enough that they would, as nearly any close-knit team in the NBA would. Of course, you'll say they wouldn't because you are a spurs fan and they can do no wrong.

Now, back to the topic of intent. I must be the only one who has access to Stu's previous rulings on this exact same rule, though I find that odd because Google is open to the public and it only takes about 3 seconds to find. I'm gonna post it again because I have yet to hear a valid response to it. So far, everyone who has defended it has essentially said it's a black and white rule not open for interpretation...unless you need to decide what is and isn't an altercation, which is determined by whether you are on the Spurs or not apparently.

In response to this rule in the Lakers-Kings fight in 2002:
NBA vice president Stu Jackson said. "In this circumstance, our judgment was that the players who left the bench were attempting to break up the fight and did not escalate the altercation.''

Apparently intent comes into play and we have no idea what the intent was, assuming the rule hasn't changed since 2002. If it were black and white as they now claim, those players would have been suspended. Here be the link:
http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2002/1028/1452258.html

Oh wait, that fight included the league's other golden boys, the lakers. I have no doubt that if it had been, say, Gino that was body checked in front of the spurs bench and Duncan got up (which, given his earlier response, he probably would have), it would have only been to "attempt to break up the fight and not escalate the altercation." :rolleyes2

But the Spurs don't get the TV ratings. Phoenix does. I can't comprehend why the league would "favor" the Spurs if that's really how the TV ratings are. I understand that you think they made a bad decision in the suspensions. But where we do we go from here?

Hell a part of me wants Phoenix to win this series b/c then if the Spurs happened to win the title then all non-Spur fans would forever tell me the title was "tainted".

Everyone keeps saying that San Antonio is cheating. I will never understand that considering we were the "golden boys" of the league up until now.

10 of the 12 guys haven't done a damn thing worth crying over. So why is the entire team being chastised?

 

[Gonzo]

I have already stated- now that the Suns are at full strength again, I would be VERY carefull driving the lane if I was that little frenchy-male supermodel Toni Parker....

I would be kind of upset if we sunk to blowen's level, unless it was against blowen that is. While I won't wish injury upon him, I certainly wouldn't be upset if karma has its way with him or horry.

 

[The Confessor]

Everyone keeps saying that San Antonio is cheating. I will never understand that considering we were the "golden boys" of the league up until now.

10 of the 12 guys haven't done a damn thing worth crying over. So why is the entire team being chastised?

I am not saying SAN ANTONIO is cheating. I am saying that you have some VERY DIRTY players that have zero problem playing outside the rules.

Okay, so Phoenix has 12 out of 12 that haven't done a damn thing wrong- so why are they getting absolutely screwed?

 

[DuderinoN703]

Its hard to not think that this might have been planned on the Spurs part, I mean after all he goes after Nash to begin with, maybe he was the one they were trying to get out of game 6. But when you wiegh Horry, compared to Diaw, and Amare. RH is a good role player, but Amare is a solid anchor for that team....this whole thing was just ugly.

So now Horry planned on hitting Nash and getting guys suspended?

 

[DuderinoN703]

I am not saying SAN ANTONIO is cheating. I am saying that you have some VERY DIRTY players that have zero problem playing outside the rules.

Okay, so Phoenix has 12 out of 12 that haven't done a damn thing wrong- so why are they getting absolutely screwed?

Who on the Spurs is very dirty? Horry and Bowen? Ok, so then why hasn't Bowen ever been suspended for being VERY DIRTY?

 

[The Confessor]

Who on the Spurs is very dirty? Horry and Bowen? Ok, so then why hasn't Bowen ever been suspended for being VERY DIRTY?

That is a very good question.

DO I need to re-post my previous that included clips of every player Blowen has put out of commision? That list includes some very notable players ie. Steve Francis, Wally Zerbiak (Sp), Ray Allen, Kobe Bryant.... It's only about 4 pages back, I can repost if you like....

 

[DuderinoN703]

We'll never actually know if they are without the league's help :whistle:

And let me say it before you do, "we have three titles." Neato, but has nothing to do with right now. If past championships did, the Heat would still be in it and the Dolphins would be shoe ins for the Super Bowl. And you guys wouldn't need the league's help :evilmod:

So you're saying a team loses it's championship toughness the season after they win the title?

Also, you can't possibly bring up the Dolphins in this discussion b/c they last went to the SB in 1984. How many of the players on that team play still?

Guys that were on the 2005 title team include Duncan, Bowen, Parker, Horry, Barry and Ginobili. What do you know? All current players.

You don't lose toughness. You have the experience and know what it takes to win. But that doesn't guarantee you will win

 

[DuderinoN703]

That is a very good question.

DO I need to re-post my previous that included clips of every player Blowen has put out of commision? That list includes some very notable players ie. Steve Francis, Wally Zerbiak (Sp), Ray Allen, Kobe Bryant.... It's only about 4 pages back, I can repost if you like....

Again, why hasn't Bowen been suspended? Tell me

 

[DuderinoN703]

:sidelol: admitting he is dirty. :sidelol: Quel is absolutely right, and I think this statement alone proves it.

That dirtbag is just lucky the Suns aren't the types to retaliate. Yet. We still have Bell, who does have a bit of a dirty streak. OMG, a fan actually admitting that someone on his team can play dirty (though not nearly as often or with as malicious intent as blowen. His tends to be retaliatory). Imagine that.

You act as if I hold Bowen and Horry above everyone else. What Horry did was ridiculous and I've said that in this thread. It was a dirty and unneccessary play.

Horry got DISCIPLINED for it. The NBA decided the dirty play warranted it.

Bowen hasn't got DISCIPLINED for his apparent nut-kicking and leg-kicking but it wasn't a dirty play. Well, to Suns fans it is. But that's the same as Bills fans acting like they run the NFL

 

[DuderinoN703]

Not sure about that rule and am open to learning about it if you wish to look it up. Regardless, I have no doubt you would find a way to excuse it if it were Dustin Hoffm...er, Gregg Popovich (and before you get all defensive about that, that's not a knock on him, I just think he kinda looks like him)

Again I don't know why you act as if I'm the biggest Spurs homer there is. What evidence makes you believe I don't think the Spurs do anything wrong?

 

[Gonzo]

But the Spurs don't get the TV ratings. Phoenix does. I can't comprehend why the league would "favor" the Spurs if that's really how the TV ratings are. I understand that you think they made a bad decision in the suspensions. But where we do we go from here?

Hell a part of me wants Phoenix to win this series b/c then if the Spurs happened to win the title then all non-Spur fans would forever tell me the title was "tainted".

Everyone keeps saying that San Antonio is cheating. I will never understand that considering we were the "golden boys" of the league up until now.

10 of the 12 guys haven't done a damn thing worth crying over. So why is the entire team being chastised?

Neither do I really, but I don't understand why girls stay with guys who beat them either. Love works in mysterious ways. And the spurs do get ratings despite your "wo is me, we det no wespet" outlook.

This whole series is tainted now because of a bull**** rule and a bull**** interpretation of it.

The whole team is being chastised because the whole team benefited greatly.

Oh, and it wasn't just Game 5 that was affected. The Suns are going into Game 6 in SA after their starters and bench had to play far more than usual because of lack of depth after losing 2 other starters. I've never seen them more tired than they were at the end of Game 5.

 

[The Confessor]

Again, why hasn't Bowen been suspended? Tell me

Hell, I dont have the answer to that question. If I was I would be Commisioner Stern-which means I would still be out to breakfast with Coach Popavich:wink:

 

[DuderinoN703]

Ummmm, it obviously was during a break in play, in fact it was almost during a break in Nash

Coaches walk onto the court ALL THE TIME-while play is stopped that is...

Obviously? Duncan was inbounding the god damn ball. That isn't a stoppage in play.

Why should I even listen to you? You claimed Amare came off the bench to help Nash up when the replays I've seen 4,000 times show he isnt even looking at Nash when he's going to the court.