First Question (remember this is on bbw politics, government politics, and basketball politics):How do you feel about the suspension of Stoudemire and Diaw for game 5
I believe that rules are rules, but some rules should not be rules especially if they refer to situations that happened a decade ago. sure it has prevented many situations like this but, The rule says do not leave the immediate vicinity of the bench. Diaw caught himself before Amare did but neither players went on the court or to where the altercation was going on. I firmly believe that Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw were concerned with the situation and instinct broke in to get up and get to their team, but both players stopped and stayed on their bench before going on the court. so no, neither of these players should have been suspended. I think that the NBA was not going to suspend Diaw, but they thought that if they had to suspend just one, they had to suspend both.
I believe that Stern made the correct decision, but the league will review the call and possibly make a rule change in the near future. Remember back when the Mavericks were the fourth seed, and the Spurs were the first seed, and there was a lot of controversy over division leaders getting the high seeds? Stern changed that policy right away. The same could be said over the recent suspensions to Diaw and Amare.Give David Stern some credit. In recent history, the NBA has seen a lot of violence. The Knicks and Nuggets game and the Pacers and Pistons game. Stern did not let them get off easy. The league is supposed to be a professional league, but this fighting is anything but that.Amare and Boris Diaw went onto the court and got suspended, but didn't Tim Duncan also go on the court in the second quarter?
I think SunnyD is all wrong on this. Stern himself said that he thought the rule shouldn't be changed. He said he would change it, but it would be up to the owners voting. That tells me that he has to be told what is the smart thing, not that he knows what is the smart thing. This is not the first time, either. As I recall, he didn't want to change back to the old ball this past season, when pretty much everyone wanted to. It took a lot of complaining to change the ball back. Now, regarding violence in the NBA... to me, that is such a publicity stunt. Are you telling me that the NY/Denver incident was violent? Give me a break; I've seen elementary aged kids get in worse fights than that. In the past few years, I've seen a Cowboys player get a cleat to the forehead, Miami U's football players rip their helmets off and start beating another team with them, some NHL player get a stick to the face (bloodier fights have happened too, I imagine), and Mark DeRosa tackle that Angels' hitter (and there have been bench-clearing brawls in the MLB, as well). I mean really, the NYK/Nuggs incident was hardly violent in comparison. WHOA, Melo slapped someone in the face. Big f*cking deal. The Palace incident was bad, but most everything since then has been reactive, not proactive. It's all publicity.Edit: To actually relate it to the topic, I think Stern is making very specious claims regarding the whole thing. I don't believe that the rule protects anyone like he thinks it does. If anyone wants to hear this argument, I'll say it again, but I already said it in another thread.
