<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">As much as I'd love to condemn the NBA higher-ups for ruining the Spurs-Suns series, I can't jeopardize the chances of them fixing the 2007 lottery for my beloved Celtics. We desperately need one of the top two picks or I'm going to develop a serious drinking problem. Those are the stakes. Now, you could argue that a serious drinking problem would inject some much-needed life into my column, and you might even be right. But I'd rather avoid this scenario. So here's my defense on the NBA's behalf ... You can't blame them for the Stoudemire-Diaw suspensions because they correctly interpreted a stupid, idiotic, foolish, moronic, brainless, unintelligent, foolhardy, imprudent, thoughtless, obtuse and thickheaded rule. Can you blame them for having that rule in the first place? Yes. But you can't blame them for the actual interpretation -- after all, Stoudemire and Diaw did leave their bench during an altercation, just like Tom Brady's right arm was still coming down as Charles Woodson popped him in the Tuck Rule Game. Everyone knows about the leaving-the-bench rule. It's been around for more than a decade. It's the reason assistant coaches spin around during potential fights and hold their arms out like bouncers at a nightclub. It's the reason a really good Knicks team got bounced from the '97 playoffs (robbing everyone of a much-anticipated Bulls-Knicks Eastern Conference finals). It's also the reason why we haven't had a bench-clearing brawl since the rule was invented. Here's the problem with that stupid, idiotic, foolish, moronic, brainless, unintelligent, foolhardy, imprudent, thoughtless, obtuse and thickheaded rule: It's currently designed as a black-or-white law that leaves no room for interpretation. As Barkley pointed out on TNT, Stoudemire and Diaw stopped after a few steps and never escalated the situation. In a way, it played out as poorly as the tuck rule did. In that playoff game against the Raiders, Brady pumped the football, brought it back down, got popped by Woodson and coughed up the ball. It should have been a fumble, but because of the stupid, idiotic, foolish, moronic, brainless, unwise unintelligent, foolhardy, imprudent, thoughtless, obtuse and thickheaded way that the tuck rule was designed, the play was interpreted correctly, the Patriots kept the ball and ended up winning in overtime. The bothersome thing is that both rules should have been changed. After the Pats-Raiders game, the NFL should have softened that rule to leave some degree of interpretation depending on the game and the situation. Same with the NBA after the Knicks-Heat debacle in '97. Why didn't that happen? Because both leagues were so freaking stubborn and took so much heat for those two games, they obstinately kept the exact language of those rules in place. After all, a change of the rules would have been an admission that they failed. And as the old saying goes, those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Sadly, regretfully, unfortunately, the Stoudemire-Diaw suspensions tainted a successful playoffs and inspired a record-setting number of fans to exhale in disgust, "That's it, I'm finally done with the NBA."</div> <div align="center">Source: ESPN Page 2</div>
<div class="quote_poster">M Two One Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"><div align="center">Source: ESPN Page 2</div></div> Bill Simmons
<div class="quote_poster">XSV Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> Bill Simmons</div> I agree completely. amazingly written article. Bill Simmons has always been a good writer.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Here's the problem with that stupid, idiotic, foolish, moronic, brainless, unintelligent, foolhardy, imprudent, thoughtless, obtuse and thickheaded rule: It's currently designed as a black-or-white law that leaves no room for interpretation. </div> Actually, the rule has been somewhat interpreted (because Duncan did not leave the court during an "altercation").
It was an altercation though, and if Stern didn't rub oil on Duncan, Bowen and Pop's balls every night, Duncan would have been suspended as well.
<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">^^^STOP IT, lol.....you know that suspension was BS</div> It was. But as much as they probably didn't wanna give out the suspensions, they had no choice. If they didn't suspend the players, the fans and the league would think there was a bias for star players.
I agree that okay, a rule is a rule, but there should be some room for interpretation within it. Amare ran over to Steve Nash, NOT Robert Horry. Ditto for Diaw. Both of them pulled back, and both of them did not touch any opposing players. On top of that, the SPURS instigated the whole thing, and in the end, the Spurs get rewarded. What kind of justice is that? Spurs fans, hypothetically speaking, if say, Jalen Rose came in the game, punched Tony Parker in the face and Tim Duncan went to check if Tony was okay in the heat of the moment and missed a game because of it, would you agree to the notion that a "rule is a rule?" Okay, it's a rule, but like Simmons said, common sense should prevail over strict rules that don't apply to every situation.
<div class="quote_poster">THE DREAM Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">^^^STOP IT, lol.....you know that suspension was BS</div> Stop what?
