<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>June 4, 2007Brownie Points: Cavs? win makes Suns? loss hurt moreJerry Brown, Tribune ColumnistFor Suns fans who felt an NBA championship was stolen away by David Stern, the basketball gods who despise their team, or, OK, OK, maybe the San Antonio Spurs, the nightmare just got worse.Cleveland won the Eastern Conference. Oh swell.The Suns swept the Cavaliers this season. They?ve won eight of the last 10 meetings, and led in the other two games by at least 17 points. Their game plan ? let LeBron James score his 40 or so points, run Zydrunas Ilgauskas into the hardwood and exploit matchup advantages all over the floor ? has a proven track record.By the way, SI.com reports that last week in Orlando NBA owners, at the request of the Suns, took a look at the rule that levies an automatic suspension to players for leaving the bench.No changes were recommended.</div> :ranting: Stupid owners.
Good, its a good rule and just because one team got hurt for breaking the rule everyone is crying. but I garentee you if it was a team no one cared about like Orlando no one would be upset.
It's not a good rule. They should punish someone if they are even close to escalating an altercation, not players who get closer but are still far away and go back while it's continuing... Players should get suspended for joining a fight not looking to see what happened to their best player and give away the series because of it.Or at least make some changes so one team doesn't benefit from a dirty play when one of their players the game before went out just as far on the court as any Suns player.
Amare and Diaw had no business running towards the altercation, they knew that it was wrong. the only exception to this rule should have been in 98 when Jalen Rose got suspended, he was up ready to check in before the altercation.
What was Duncan doing getting up and going past the 3-point line when there wasn't anything even intentional going on and it was a role player, not an MVP who was being beat up the whole series, falling to the ground? Amare and Diaw were no where close to being involved, just like Duncan, and went back to the bench. There was no reason for a suspension if Duncan wasn't suspended also.They should either make it more strict so everyone from the bench on the court is suspended or make it more lenient. Doing it like this makes it all just look rigged. You shouldn't get a suspension for having nothing to do with an altercation.Good thing Stern is old...he'll only be here for another decade tops. :-/
The differnce between the Duncan play and what Amare and Diaw did, is that there was nothing called on the Duncan play, so it couldn't have been an altercation. also, Duncan didn't lead the coaches box, Amare did. this suspension was by the book and 100% right.
So the Spurs were rewarded for all their cheap shots throughout the series. The rule is about going on the court. I don't know, but when Barkley was suspended didn't he just step on the court and not as far as Duncan did? They have this rule to avoid fights, but they suspend two guys who had nothing to do with the altercation, but reward a team the series for dirty play? That's not good. What would you say if...Boozer was taken out by a Danny Fortson type and it lost you the series? The NBA showed there won't be any serious consequences for that type of stuff so I'd expect a lot more of that in the future.If a team's MVP is beat up the whole series and then there's a very unnecessary hard foul at the end of the game of course there will be a reaction. It shouldn't lose you the series because the other team is dirty. Duncan came farther onto the court for nothing serious at all. Amare and Diaw were not even close to starting anything. It just makes the NBA look very bad. And what was with that Lakers-Kings situation everyone was talking about when this happened?The suspension was by the book, but this is a bad rule, at least how it's worded.This pisses me off too much. I can't wait until the next time Stern or the Spurs show up in Phoenix. The good thing may be that it could have woken up our very quiet and disappointing fan base. The lower level fans are terrible. They don't even care...
Keep the rule but dont judge it by the book judge it by reactions. lets say someone gets off the bench and just looking on to see what is going on then hye doesn't deserve a suspensions BUT if the player is going out there and LOOKS like he is about to start something or has intension too then give them a suspension.
If a player leaves the bench and gets involved then he should get suspended, but for just looking like he might do is going too far. The rule was fine to start with, the league really needed to stamp fighting out, but now fighting isn't a big part of the league. Each case should be looked at individually, its not always black & white. With the Amare/iaw case, they got suspended for not getting involved in anything.
I can understand why the NBA is so tough on their rules now. After the Brawl at Auburn Hills they want to make sure that it never happens again and they have cracked down. Personally I dont agree but from a business perspective I know why they do it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ASUFan22 @ Jun 4 2007, 02:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So the Spurs were rewarded for all their cheap shots throughout the series. The rule is about going on the court. I don't know, but when Barkley was suspended didn't he just step on the court and not as far as Duncan did? They have this rule to avoid fights, but they suspend two guys who had nothing to do with the altercation, but reward a team the series for dirty play? That's not good. What would you say if...Boozer was taken out by a Danny Fortson type and it lost you the series? The NBA showed there won't be any serious consequences for that type of stuff so I'd expect a lot more of that in the future.If a team's MVP is beat up the whole series and then there's a very unnecessary hard foul at the end of the game of course there will be a reaction. It shouldn't lose you the series because the other team is dirty. Duncan came farther onto the court for nothing serious at all. Amare and Diaw were not even close to starting anything. It just makes the NBA look very bad. And what was with that Lakers-Kings situation everyone was talking about when this happened?The suspension was by the book, but this is a bad rule, at least how it's worded.This pisses me off too much. I can't wait until the next time Stern or the Spurs show up in Phoenix. The good thing may be that it could have woken up our very quiet and disappointing fan base. The lower level fans are terrible. They don't even care...</div>Hopefully Boozer would have the presence of mind not to leave the bench. but what Amare and Diaw did was wrong, like I said they had no business leaving the bench in the first place. The refs had a lot to do with this too, had they blown the whistle when Elson was fouled than Duncan should have been repremanded, but since they didnt, than Duncan didn't violate the rule. Amare and Diaw ran towards the altercation and I think that had something to do with it as well, their actions made them look worse.I agree Horry sent a cheapshot to Nash, but Nash wasn't physically hurt and he played. Nash was mentally scared because he looked very apprihensive about everything the rest of the series. Its a simple rule, don't leave the bench when there is an altercation. Its a rule which should be inplace. I do agree that Barkleys suspenion was BS, but the Chuckster also overplayed that a lot.
No, I'm saying if Fortson just injured him because obviously now you can do what you want. The NBA doesn't care if you try to hurt the other team's players, but do care when a couple players who DID NOT have anything to do with an altercation come off the bench. The NBA showed that it doesn't care about that so any team can put out a bench player to try and take out a player on the other team and only the victim will be punished either by injuries or suspensions...that's not right. Duncan was worried about his teammate just like Amare and Diaw were, the Suns shouldn't have been punished for their players doing the same exact thing. And they had even more reason than Duncan to worry about their teammate because of the split open nose, intentional knee to the balls and then this. I think a rule like this should be in place, but it should be changed so something like this doesn't happen again.
Teams have always tried injuring their opponents. the Jazz were famous for this in the mid 90s, as were the Knicks, The Suns, the Rockets, the Clippers, the Pistons, the Heat and a lot of other teams. The Body check on Nash wasn't to bad, but Nash's acting made it look worse. Trust me I know what it's like to basically lose out because of a cheapshot. in 99 Chris Webber floored John Stockton and Stockton was never the same after that and had trouble playing. 99 was also the last oppertunity the Jazz had to win a title. So I understand your fustration, the differnce between that play and the play this year is no one left the bench. Horry was also suspended, what more do you want? he missed the last two games of the series, and than was a complete non factor in the Utah series. I also don't think even without that foul you would have beaten the Spurs.
The Suns had just come off an amazing momentum-shifting comeback win in Game 4 (if you remember, no one does because of the suspensions) and were heading home. After that they probably would have won Game 5 and then be up 3-2 and who knows? But Stern's decision killed our momentum and left us really short-handed. I would have liked to see Duncan being suspended for going past the 3-point line and then Bowen came in to pull him back...hey he knew Duncan shouldn't have been out there. And Bowen also never got a suspension for the sh*t he was doing which was worse than what anyone else did in the series. Instead Amare and Diaw take a few steps towards them and go back as everything was going on and our team was punished for their dirty play. Horry is a scrub who makes one big shot a series, he wasn't important.
Good rule in terms of stopping a fight, but it should be reviewed this season. If it wasn't for the suspension of Amare, and Diaw Suns would be in the Finals vs. Cleveland not Spurs. :thumbdn1:
The rule should definitley stay, but the penalty should change. My thought is possibly a technical foul or something of that nature. David Stern needs to keep his players safe, but he also needs to keep in mind that just because a player leaves the bench doesn't automatically mean that they are going to fight.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (([HoUsToN]) @ Jun 4 2007, 03:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Good rule in terms of stopping a fight, but it should be reviewed this season. If it wasn't for the suspension of Amare, and Diaw Suns would be in the Finals vs. Cleveland not Spurs. :thumbdn1:</div>Glad we have a psychic on board. All this "the dirty Spurs stole the series" talk should stop. It's bad for the game, and it's wrong. The Spurs were the better team. The Suns played well in game 5; the small lineup gave the Spurs trouble. It's hard to say they would have done better with Amare back. He adds positives, no doubt, but also brings his own weaknesses. They didn't win games 1, 3 or 6 when they were at full strength, so that makes it 3-2 Spurs, ignoring the allegedly "tainted" game. Add in the near miraculous comeback in game 4, and you have one solid win by the Suns the entire series.And don't forget that the reason Amare and Diaw ran out wasn't because of the Horry hit and Nash reaction. Raja Bell went after Horry, and THAT is what triggered it, making it an incident. That is what those guys could see. If Bell had kept his head, it wouldn't have happened.And as far as the rule goes, that same rule has been there forever. It hurt the Knicks far, far more back when they lost to the Heat, and it would have been grossly unfair to let the Suns off just because they are the no-defense darlings of tv ratings. That is where Stern showed integrity, by not bending the rules to try to help the ratings popular Suns.
That's not true, when Bell and Horry were going at it those two headed back. They jump off the bench when Nash was thrown to the floor.The series was tied, the Suns had all the momentum and this rule took it all away. Amare would've made a huge difference. Not having him hurt us last year and he is our 2nd best player against the Spurs. We need him to beat them. Without him out, old Kurt Thomas was worn out so his game suffered in the 2nd half, Nash had to do more so they were all worn out by the next game with so many players having to play over 40 min. Losing Amare hurt because we need him at the end to close out games, like we did in Game 4. He's so valuable to the team, if you followed the Suns the last 3 years you should be able to see that. We would've been up 3-2 carrying over the momentum we had from Game 4(like the Spurs did with the Game 5 win), lost in San Antonio(maybe finished off the series, just as likely as the Spurs winning Game 5 anyway) and have a Game 7 at home, but even if we didn't win it ruined the best series of the playoffs. It shortened it and it took players away from both teams. And don't say 1 solid win by the Suns. The game is 4 quarters long and the Suns deserved that Game 4 which they won by more points than the Spurs did Game 1.The Spurs stole the series stuff is not bad for the game. What's bad for the game is letting a thuggish play effect the series so much (I thought they wanted to get away from it but they are welcoming it more with this decision) and not allowing the two best teams remaining play it out to see who really was the best. The Spurs may have won, but the Suns were in a great position to take the series before the suspensions. Take away Tony Parker or Manu from the Spurs and put them up against a Suns team at full strength and I doubt they win.Again, I like the idea behind this rule, but they either need to be more lenient or make it so that anyone from the bench that steps on the court will get a suspension, no matter what. Or they could keep it and make the punishment a flagrant foul or something. You don't want any playoff series to be effected because of this, unless you're the opposing team's fan.Of course maybe it should stay...because I know if it changes some other team will do it against the Suns in the next decade and not get the punishment we got because the team wanted it changed. That would really suck.
This will be one of Stern's defining moments. He will be forever known as the man who let the Suns die in a smoldering crater while he sat back in bed with Stu Jackson while the owners decide to do nothing about one of the worst rules in basketball. I believe it would be a better rule if it is changed to state that the player must be about to go ape s*** on them to be suspended, but will be fined if they leave the bench area.Also like what ASU said (and I think this is a worse option, but it should have been considered) to make it so that if you leave the bench when an altercation may occur you should also be suspended.What I think somebody should do on a bad nbdl team is step on the court like one step out during a fight and see what happens. That could create some buzz
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ASUFan22 @ Jun 5 2007, 11:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That's not true, when Bell and Horry were going at it those two headed back. They jump off the bench when Nash was thrown to the floor.</div>A few comments here:1 - It's not when they jump up that matters, it's when the leave the bench area, which takes a bit of time.2 - A hard foul doesn't automatically make it an "incident," Bell and Horry going at it did that. If Horry helped him up it probably doesn't happen.3 - Watch the tape again. The scrapping was starting when Amare comes into the picture, and he's heading towards Horry/Bell and the rest, angling out from the bench, before being pushed back. He doesn't even look at Nash.The Suns got burned for violating a well known rule that isn't changing. Just look at the precedent from the Knicks-Heat series in 97 before claiming Stern was wrong. P.J. Brown takes down Charlie Ward, and the Knicks, up 3-2 after that game, lose Ewing, Johnson, Houston, and Starks for a game each, in a situation that if anything is far more unfair to the team that took the cheap shot. They lose the last 2 games and the series. The bottom line? Those that lose their cool will be punished.It didn't change then, and it's not changing now. The hypocrisy of letting off Stoudemire and Diaw would have been too much.
