Should Stoudamire and Diaw be suspended?


Status
Not open for further replies.
Lewis said:
I am sorry (really I am not). If that was a hard, flagrant foul, then there are 20 of them a game. The difference was it was in the middle of the court, not in the lane, but more importantantly, was how Nash reacted. Horry did not throw an elbow, clothline him or nothing like that.

I have notice this for a while, sometimes it is not so much about how hard the foul is in many cases, it is how the player that got fouled reacts. If that player just takes the foul like a soilder, the refs say nothing, but if they act like the got killed and wanna fight, then it is flagrant foul time. I bet any amount of money, if the same thing happened to someone else, and instead of falling all backward like they just got shot with a magnum, they would have kept going and when the ref blew the whistle, just acted normal, there would not have been a flagrent foul called.

BUt Nash put on the act, but he fooled his teamates more than the other team this time, and now his #1 boy might be sitting out.

With 1 minute left in the game, Nash is crazy if he though Horry was gonna let him dribble around him a start a fast break that easy.
Click to expand...

Some people are trying to say that Duncan came on the court. Here's the clip. He could've been reacting to the dunk, so this is not a clear cut violation. It could go either way, but stoudemire's violation is loud and clear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6Sq0uuaMHY
 



No problem with the suspension...Suns are clearly the better team anyway. But for those of you saying Nash flopped you need to get real. Horry outweighs him by about 60lbs or more and the problem is that the shove sent him into the scorer's table. There was no where for him to go and serious injury could have occured...without Nash the Suns are not nearly the same team. Suns win game 5 and Stoudamire comes back with a vengeance as the Suns end it in six. Duncan and Kobe can both go fishiing!
 
MikeBigg said:
No problem with the suspension...Suns are clearly the better team anyway. But for those of you saying Nash flopped you need to get real. Horry outweighs him by about 60lbs or more and the problem is that the shove sent him into the scorer's table. There was no where for him to go and serious injury could have occured...without Nash the Suns are not nearly the same team. Suns win game 5 and Stoudamire comes back with a vengeance as the Suns end it in six. Duncan and Kobe can both go fishiing!
Click to expand...

It's nice to dream every once in a while.:emlaugh:
 
JayRob said:
Actually BB, he may have won them the series IF stoudamire's suspended for leaving the bench.
In the old days, that hit on nash would've been a regular foul. The NBA is turning the league into a bunch of sissies and whiners with these weak flagrant foul calls.
Click to expand...

:tup: :tup: :tup:
 
Put some of the blame on the refs also. The flagerent foul would not have happened if they would have called that foul on the Suns when Horry was knocked down on the previous play. The officiating has been horrible like always in the NBA.
 
JayRob said:
Just announced on sportscenter: amare and boris suspended one game, Horry two games. Justice was served.
Click to expand...

Justice was not served, they copped out by giving Horry 2 games. That foul was not a 2 game suspension foul. The refs gave him a flagrant 2 which comes with a automatic ejection and he would have been fined because of that. Amare and Boris got the automatic suspension for the leaving the bench area. No different from how they treated the Knicks a few years ago when they suspended all of their players for walking out of the bench area.
 
JayRob said:
For what? There was NO fight or brawl, so that case is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

There wasn't a fight or brawl on the Nash foul either. This ruling is utterly ridiculous on all accounts. That coming off the bench ruled needs to be looked at in the off season to take into account the circumstances of each situation. Diaw and Stoudemire shouldn't have been suspended. Fined, but not suspended. Horry's foul was a hard foul, but not worthy of a 2 game suspension. I think they gave Horry a 2 game suspension to try to somewhat save face after suspending Diaw and Stoudemire.
 
ToPdOg said:
There wasn't a fight or brawl on the Nash foul either. This ruling is utterly ridiculous on all accounts. That coming off the bench ruled needs to be looked at in the off season to take into account the circumstances of each situation. Diaw and Stoudemire shouldn't have been suspended. Fined, but not suspended. Horry's foul was a hard foul, but not worthy of a 2 game suspension. I think they gave Horry a 2 game suspension to try to somewhat save face after suspending Diaw and Stoudemire.
Click to expand...

You cannot officiate on what a rule "should be" nor how you "feel" about it. You must officiate on the rule as it stands. As it stands, Diaw and Stoudemire MUST be suspended for one game or it invalidates all of the previous judgements on the same rule. It makes not difference whether it is the playoffs or regular season unless the rule says specifies such for different times of the year. Horry should have been suspended also but the length of suspension in this case is at the discretion of the league office. They decided on 2 games and so it goes.

If the rule says you don't leave the bench, then park your carcase there until you are supposed to leave the bench.
 
ToPdOg said:
There wasn't a fight or brawl on the Nash foul either. This ruling is utterly ridiculous on all accounts. That coming off the bench ruled needs to be looked at in the off season to take into account the circumstances of each situation. Diaw and Stoudemire shouldn't have been suspended. Fined, but not suspended. Horry's foul was a hard foul, but not worthy of a 2 game suspension. I think they gave Horry a 2 game suspension to try to somewhat save face after suspending Diaw and Stoudemire.
Click to expand...


I agree, but I think Horry should have been suspended for the rest of the series.

Go Suns! :D
 
dacontinent said:
You cannot officiate on what a rule "should be" nor how you "feel" about it. You must officiate on the rule as it stands. As it stands, Diaw and Stoudemire MUST be suspended for one game or it invalidates all of the previous judgements on the same rule. It makes not difference whether it is the playoffs or regular season unless the rule says specifies such for different times of the year. Horry should have been suspended also but the length of suspension in this case is at the discretion of the league office. They decided on 2 games and so it goes.

If the rule says you don't leave the bench, then park your carcase there until you are supposed to leave the bench.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the ruling based on the current rules. What I disagree with is the rule itself in the fact that not all situations are as cut and dry as they make it seem to be. Based on the way the rule is, a team can easily use it to provoke another team by committing a hard foul in front of the opposing team's bench, knowing people are gonna get up off the bench. That's the problem I have with it.
 
Ok here it is. Now read this and let this marinate in your mind and tell me can you see the line of distinction between Jackson's feelings.


Jackson said the league does not want to influence the outcome of a series but had no choice in the matter.

?This is a very unfortunate circumstance,? he said during a conference call. ?No one here at the league office wants to suspend players any game, much less a pivotal game in the second round of a playoff series. But the rule, however, is the rule, and we intend to apply it consistently.?
Click to expand...


Asked if he thought it was a fair decision, Jackson said, ?It?s not a matter of fairness, it?s a matter of correctness, and this is the right decision at this point in time.?

Jackson said it was clear that Stoudemire and Diaw had violated the rule, saying they were ?20 to 25 feet? from their seats.

?Both players stood and made their way towards the altercation which occurred on the court,? Jackson said. ?They did not remain in the bench area.?
Click to expand...


But then Jackson comes back and said this.



Jackson brushed aside a suggestion that Tim Duncan violated the rule in the second quarter when he rushed onto the court after Francisco Elson dunked and landed on the shoulders of the Suns? James Jones.

?Both players got up,? Jackson said. ?There was no altercation, and they ran down to the other end of the court.?
Click to expand...

Now, TD left the "bench area" also. TNT kept showing it over and over. He came on the floor and left the "bench area", but Jackson said that since both players on the floor got up and went back down court that TD wouldnt have been penalized. So, "WHAT EXACTLY IS THE RULE?" Is it "if any player leaves the 'bench area', he will get penalized"? Or is it "if any player leaves the 'bench area' when an altercation is occuring"? Cause I was under the impression that if the player leaves the "bench area" whether there's an altercation in progress or a possible altercation condition would be suspended. They need to re-define that rule or create a whole new rule, because there are too many loop-holes in it.
 
The suspensions are the latest twist in an intriguing series that?s featured several rough plays.

Nash has received the brunt of it. He missed a critical portion of the final minute of Game 1 because of a bloody gash in his nose, the result of a head-on collision with Tony Parker.

After Game 2, Stoudemire called the Spurs ?a dirty team,? specifically mentioning Bruce Bowen and Manu Ginobili.

In Game 3, Bowen kneed Nash in the groin, but the NBA decided no suspension was warranted.

After he went back to the bench following Horry?s foul, Stoudemire chose to rub it in.

He turned to the Spurs crowd and chanted ?Dirty, dirty, dirty.?

?Can I get a ?dirty? now?? Stoudemire shouted. ?Now, was I out of line??
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.........maybe Stoudemire was right all along.
 



Blacknbengal said:
Now, TD left the "bench area" also. TNT kept showing it over and over. He came on the floor and left the "bench area", but Jackson said that since both players on the floor got up and went back down court that TD wouldnt have been penalized. So, "WHAT EXACTLY IS THE RULE?" Is it "if any player leaves the 'bench area', he will get penalized"? Or is it "if any player leaves the 'bench area' when an altercation is occuring"? Cause I was under the impression that if the player leaves the "bench area" whether there's an altercation in progress or a possible altercation condition would be suspended. They need to re-define that rule or create a whole new rule, because there are too many loop-holes in it.
Click to expand...

It is pretty clear. If there is an altercation the players are not supposed to leave the bench area. There clearly was NO altercation when Duncan left. Players wander across the out of bounds line all the time when there is no altercation.
 
jag4life said:
It is pretty clear. If there is an altercation the players are not supposed to leave the bench area. There clearly was NO altercation when Duncan left. Players wander across the out of bounds line all the time when there is no altercation.
Click to expand...

But J4L, Duncan wasnt "wandering" over the out of bounds line just to be stretching his legs. It's clear that he perceived that there was going to be an altercation when Francisco Elson landed on James Jones neck and back. Hey, and he did leave the "bench area" if for that reason.
 
Blacknbengal said:
But J4L, Duncan wasnt "wandering" over the out of bounds line just to be stretching his legs. It's clear that he perceived that there was going to be an altercation when Francisco Elson landed on James Jones neck and back.
Click to expand...

There was NO altercation... he was on the court while they had already ran to the other end.
 
jag4life said:
There was NO altercation... he was on the court while they had already ran to the other end.
Click to expand...

I disagree. He walked onto the court when Francisco Elson was getting up off the floor. Once James had ran back down court and Elson had fully gotten up and ran back down court, Duncan proceeded to go back to his seat.
 
Blacknbengal said:
I disagree. He walked onto the court when Francisco Elson was getting up off the floor. Once James had ran back down court and Elson had fully gotten up and ran back down court, Duncan proceeded to go back to his seat.
Click to expand...

So dude getting up off the floor... did he approach James Jones?
 
Is this rule for players only, or does it also apply to the coaching staff, trainers, etc as well? If it applies to them as well, why weren't the people that left the bench area to push Stoudemire and Diaw back towards the bench area suspended too?
 
jag4life said:
That IS the issue... there is no altercation without...and altercation! lol
Click to expand...

That is not the issue J4L. TD left the "bench area" perceiving that there was going to be an altercation. The camera doesnt lie. He was not stretching his legs, not taking an extended walk to the scorer's table to be subed in, not going out there to high five his teammate after a timeout. He walked onto the floor anticipating an altercation. He should be suspended because like Jackson said,

?But the rule, however, is the rule, and we intend to apply it consistently.?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top