A worthy rant regarding the controversial mid-series NBA suspensions...

[WilliamPitt]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070516&sportCat=nba

Rules are rules, even when they suck.

[H2O Man]

1. I asked my

younger son what he thought about the suspensions. He knows a heck of a lot more about all sports but one, than I do. And he was able to explain his thoughts in a way that made sense to me.

When Floyd Mayweather Jr fought Zab "Super" Judah, there was the ugly outburst of fouls late in the fight when Zab became frustrated. Floyd's uncle jumped into the ring, and as the old saying goes, "all hell broke loose."

By the rules, the referee was supposed to DQ Mayweather. The rules are clear: if one fighter's cornermen step into the ring during a round, that fighter is disqualified.

The referee decided that in that case, it was better to let the fight continue, and to allow the commission to penalize the individuals responsible for breaking the rules later. He did not want to go strictly by the rules, because to have done so would penalize not only the "guilty" parties, but also harm those who were not guilty, and to decide the outcome of a championship-level competition.

The NBA situation isn't exactly the same, of course. But I think that it has similarities.

[pokerfan]

2. The rule isn't as black and white as Stern and Jackson would have us believe

Let me first say that I'm not a fan of either team so I have no dog in this fight except my sense of fairness.

Here's the rule: "During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $35,000."

That sounds great but following Game 4 they need to better define what they mean by the bench area because Stu Jackson said yesterday that's apparently it has different dimensions depending upon the location of the altercation.

They also need to define altercation. Duncan and Bowen were allowed to fly off the the bench in the second quarter of Game 4. After reviewing tape TPTB decided that the situation a) didn't quite constitute or evolve into an altercation and b) since it was on the opposite side of the court from the bench, players are allowed more latitude. Well I could argue that when the Suns players came off, the altercation hadn't yet begun. Just Nash laying on the floor in from of the scorer's table holding his head and Horrey strutting away.

Where the hell is any of that in the rule? Black and white, indeed.

[northzax]

4. the bench area is clearly marked

leaving it is what causes trouble. I think the Game 4 decision was incorrect, based on the current rule.

as for Bowen, good for him for making a career out of being a hack. but this is where a sport like hockey actually has it right. Why, in a much more violent sport, do stars manage to play so long and so well? how did a guy built like Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemiuex manage to survive in a rough, violent league for two decades against bigger, stronger guys? enforcers. the rules of a game didn't prevent Gretzky from getting killed, Marty McSorley did. you cheap shot our star? we will go after yours, and the code of honor is complete. It doesn't even really need to happen very often, the threat is there and real. an intentional hard foul will be answered with another one. not on you, but on your star. When Bowen hits Nash too hard, Troy Parker should be hesitating to drive the lane, knowing that he will be hit hard. it becomes self regulating. Late career Jordan (who was plenty violent himself at times) had it with Charles Oakley and occasionaly Dennis Rodman. Rodman was just crazy enough, and Oakley was strong and dedicated enough, that you knew they could hurt your guy, if they really wanted to. This threat has been realistically taken out of the NBA game (the Suns have no one to protect Nash, no one to in essence trade for whoever hits Nash) for all the star system in the NBA, the rules cannot really protect against a clever hack like Bowen. heck, the Spurs would trade a Bowen expulsion for a Nash one anyday.

[erpowers]

7. Not the Same

What you talked about could not happen in the NBA due to the criticisms that would be leveled at the NBA. Do you not remember the Palace brawl or what happened earlier this year. If these mainly black athletes beging to hack each other people will begin to kick and stream that the NBA is too violent and the hip-hop culture has destroyed the NBA even more. I do hate to bring race into this, but the reality of it is that the white athletes of Hockey can get away with the hack act, but not the black athletes of the NBA. For anyone who wants to bash me for bring race into this and playing the race card the only thing I will say is look at the past three years in the NBA compared to Hockey.

About three years ago we had the Palace brawl and many people were saying the NBA needed to change its age and dress rules. Even though there were and still are fights every night in hockey noone called for a age restriction in hockey. I know some people will argue that the Palace brawl is not the same as retalitating against a team whose player(s) attacked a player from the opposing team; however, I would argue that I just do not think people will accept black athletes attacking each other. There are hockey fights every night and noone says anything, but when a fight in the NBA breaks out many people talk about how the athletes in the NBA are thugs and the sport has an imagine problem. So, I just do not think your idea will work. I think it would do more damage than good for the NBA.

[northzax]

8. of course, the Palace Brawl

invovled a fan, right?

fghting should be expulsion and suspension, no question. and joining a fight (like in hockey) should be worse than starting one. I think it is actually LESS likely to start fights than the current system. now the pressure just builds and builds until someone snaps and a fight ensues.

[americanstranger]

5. I think they should adapt rules along the lines of hockey.

When the Knicks and Nuggets had their brawl in the regular season, I was all for stupid Nate Robinson being punished as harshly as the two players that originally started fighting - because he was the 'third man in,' and he made a bad situation worse. (And I type that as a Knicks fan, who suffered when this rule was applied in a series that the Knicks were up 3-2, but because of suspensions of 5 players over two games, went on to lose the series to the Miami Heat).

But Barkley - whom I rarely agree with - has it right. If your star player gets leveled into the scorer's table, your first instinct is to jump up and see if he's okay. Anyone on any team will do that. I think they need to make a better distinction between guys leaving the bench to check on their teammate and guys leaving the bench to throw down. The way things are set up now, the rules assume mind-reading powers that I don't think either Stern or Stu Jackson actually possess.

There are plenty of players in the NBA who will leave the bench and not automatically start throwing punches, and this needs to be taken into consideration.

I think suspensions should be reserved for players that actually engage in fighting, but I doubt the NBA will ever change what is a stupid, vague rule.

- as

(Edited because my speller is broken today.)

[LisaM]

3. Good point - there wasn't an altercation.

Unfortunately, I didn't see tape of Duncan and Bowen coming off the bench earlier, so I can't opine on that. However, I certainly don't think that the Suns' players violated the spirit of the rule. I think it's just instinct when you see your teammate lying in a heap to get up and move toward him.

[erpowers]

6. Much Ado About Nothing

I really think the situation including the suspenions and the talk after is much ado about nothing. I agree with those who say that Nash seems to have run straight into Horry. It did not seem like the Horry hit was that bad. I also do not think Diaw and Stoudamire should have been suspended. From the video I saw Diaw and Stoudamire may have left the bench, but I did not see that they made to the court or to the altercation. It seems to me that the assistant coachs were able to prevent them from getting to the court. Therefore, they should not have been suspended. However, I do not think Horry should have been suspended either.

[Longhorn]

9. As a Spurs fan, I agree with your assessment except

I do think Horry should have been suspended for the one game because it was a harder foul than was called for. I don't think he intended to throw Nash into the table and I think Nash helped that perception along with a bit of exaggeration. However, that's the breaks and I'm not going to fault these players for flopping since it happens on every team and seems to have become a part of the game. The second game suspension was supposed to be for how Horry rebuffed Raja Bell in the aftermath by raising his arm above his shoulder. Of course, nothing happened to Bell for chest-butting him in the first place. :shrug:

I think Stoudemire should have been careful about what he wished for. He talked up the "dirty team" theme, perhaps in hopes that the officials would look for it and make more calls the Suns' way. The media jumped on it, of course, even using roughness of the game in the promos to attract viewers. The Spurs laughed it off, maybe because they were tired of being called a soft team and didn't mind the reputation. And of course, the whole thing escalated.

I guess we all have opinions on how the game should be played. It has become much more physical over the years and I wonder that the players aren't constantly injured the way they go flying into the stands or one another even when no foul occurs. It's not like they're wearing pads and helmets! Fouling has become a more important strategy of the game and fans, rather than accept a loss because one team excelled over the other, whine about how the officials decided the game, either because they called too many or too few fouls.

I love watching a game, in any sport, when I really don't care who wins. The sportscasters are neutral, the calls seem fair, the players' and coaches' comments are respectful before and after the game. And then the fans start complaining about how too much attention was paid to this player or that and how the officiating cost their team the game, etc. :nopity: Of course, that whining sometimes helps me pick a team when I previously didn't care who won.

Go Bulls! :D

[LSK]

10. except that the Suns lost last night while playing 7 players only

and one of them didnt count cuz he only played 3 minutes.

And Nash was dribbling around Horry and it was expected that Horry would grab him because the Spurs had to foul in the final minute of the game. But Horry clearly sent him flying.

[yowzayowzayowza]

11. Horry nailz it:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/basketball/nba/spurs/stories/MYSA051707.01C.BKNspurs.horry.340626b.html

IMHO, charging another player and starting the altercation surely should have drawn Nash a suspension... and, the testicular grazing was very suspect.

[Awsi Dooger]

12. Trivia, trivia; bottom line the uptempo teams are properly sent home

That crap was '80s basketball. If you want to score and allow 100 points per game in this era, you're smothered and sent packing.

Actually, the Jazz games averaged about 200 points this season. The survive only due to playing an even more ignorant team in the Warriors. The rest of the final four all averaged in the 180s. Now that's admirable, great sustained intensity and not playground ineptitude.

I still say the NBA is overly high scoring. With optimum intensity the games should be in the 150s or 160s. You do see that from time to time but with 82 games there are too many loose stretches due to scheduling dynamics. Plus the best teams wrap up the home court early and the final month is higher scoring in general. One of the best bets annually is to bet over when two teams out of contention play each other during the final month. They don't give a damn and run up and down the court like the '80s fools.