2007 NBA Playoffs

[jimotis4heisman]

Agreed. Why some have trouble understanding that basic concept is baffling.

In hockey, if a player cracks somebody's skull with a stick, and the other team has 8 players leave the bench, who do you think gets suspended? "Oh, gee, the victim's team will be hurt if they're suspended, so we should just forget that they acted like dumbasses and forget one of the basic rules of the game that EVERYBODY knows."

if you leave the bench in hockey... good luck.

under the letter of the law bell and nash should be doing time also...

 

[fourteenandoh]

So where is the suspension for Bowen/Duncan?Do you have a link? That stipulation sounds very interesting.

Bowen/Duncan they claim was not an altercation. The following is where I got my info. It is a very gray area.

http://myespn.go.com/profile/truehoop?archiveId=24

Forget the "Amare Stoudemire was going to check in" defense that had no chance after the TNT crew mocked it so soundly post-game. The Suns have a new, and to my mind better, rationale for why Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw should not be suspended: there was no fight.
The rule about leaving the bench applies only if there is not an altercation. Who decides whether or not it's an altercation? My quick examination of the rule book reveals no answers -- although I welcome your research and input.
I did notice one handy fact, though: lucky for the Suns, as far as I know no one was assessed what the rule book considers a "fighting foul." If Raja Bell's technical had met that description, he would have been ejected -- and there would have been a clear-cut case that there had been an altercation.
Doug Haller of the Arizona Republic reports:

Nash tried to downplay Stoudemire and Diaw's involvement. "First of all, that would be terrible if that silly play at the end of the game, when the game is really over, causes a detriment to the rest of the series," he said. "Second of all, there wasn't a fight. It wasn't like guys left the bench to enter the fight. So I don't see what, in the big picture, the deal is. If you want to be technical about it, guys are on the court the whole game, cheering at one time or another, and they're over the (end) line. If someone's not throwing a punch or someone doesn't run out there to enter a fight, I think it's a moot point."
​

ESPN's Marc Stein points out that there is one case -- under very different circumstances -- when players left the bench and were not suspended. So there have been exceptions. Stein also writes, in today's Daily Dime:

Stoudemire and Diaw never made it near the scrum, as Suns assistant coaches scrambled them back to the bench. Nor did Monday's incident ever become an actual brawl, with referees Joe DeRosa and Javie getting between Nash and Horry before it could escalate. There is also a growing perception, most of all, that Bowen was shown a good deal of leniency by the league office after being accused of intentionally kicking a dunking Stoudemire in Game 2 and kneeing Nash in Game 3 ... and going unpunished in both cases. Doesn't the league have to balance that against the notion of "staying consistent" on leaving-the-bench suspensions?
​

 

[fourteenandoh]

Why is it that when a team takes quicks shots and misses them its a horrible gameplan, and they are playing rushed (Doug Collins)....yet thus far tonight Golden State has played the same exact basketball they have been the entire series....making a few more, but its suddenly "playing with house money, they're relxed, and playing great basketball"? I hate commentators for the most part......I just wish some of these guys actually "saw" the game....all the intricate details really great fans see, yet so many commentators miss

Doug Collins has forgotten more about basketball than most "really great fans" will ever know.

 

[billmac91]

Doug Collins has forgotten more about basketball than most "really great fans" will ever know.

I won't dispute that, and I'm picking on Doug b/c I'm watching the game right now and it bothered me at the moment..........but really, what has changed during this game that hasn't happened all series long? Apparently Golden States play has been terrific thus far according to Doug, yet in game 4 Golden State had a poor offensive scheme and took too many 3's......thats all they've done tonightr and its free-flowing and good play

Anyways, by the end of the night I'm sure the opinion will change b/c Golden State will probably go cold and it will be considered awful shots.

Truthfully, I think Golden State has been living and dieing by the 3 and they should continue to gun....it's what makes them - them.....trying to slow it down with Utah is a death wish and pulling 40 3's a game is probably the best shot they have (sorry for the pun)

 

[BB73]

did you know there is a line in that rule that implies that the future ejections only apply in the case of a "fight". since no one was ejected for fighting, there couldn't have been a fight, thus they didn't come from the bench onto the court during a "fight". its a loophole i know, but nonetheless as Tibor has been so quick to point out, the rule is the rule. this whole thing is just beyond rediculous.

Horry was ejected for the 'flagrant 2' foul, but was also involved in the altercation. Part of his 2-game suspension was for the elbow toward Bell, which constitutes a 'fight'.

Your logic does exclude Duncan for taking two steps onto the court on the play where Elson dunked, didn't hang on the rim long enough for everybody to clear, and then came down over the shoulder of a Sun and landed hard - but there was not even a foul called on the play.

The other difference is the distance the players moved away from their seat on the bench. Duncan moved 4 or 5 feet, while Stoudemire moved 15-20 feet to get close to Nash before the coach shoved him back.

 

[fourteenandoh]

Horry was ejected for the 'flagrant 2' foul, but was also involved in the altercation. Part of his 2-game suspension was for the elbow toward Bell, which constitutes a 'fight'.

Your logic does exclude Duncan for taking two steps onto the court on the play where Elson dunked, didn't hang on the rim long enough for everybody to clear, and then came down over the shoulder of a Sun and landed hard - but there was not even a foul called on the play.

The other difference is the distance the players moved away from their seat on the bench. Duncan moved 4 or 5 feet, while Stoudemire moved 15-20 feet to get close to Nash before the coach shoved him back.

the distance they travel doesn't mean a thing. you are right, though, about the horry altercation. what i read was written before the suspensions were handed down.

 

[BB73]

the distance they travel doesn't mean a thing.

You think distance isn't a factor? Stu Jackson seems to disagree.

clickondetroit.com/nba

Stoudemire, Diaw, Horry Suspended

POSTED: 7:28 pm EDT May 15, 2007
...

Horry was suspended for flagrantly fouling Nash and striking Raja Bell above the shoulders with a forearm. Stoudemire and Diaw were suspended for leaving "the immediate vicinity of their bench" during an altercation, according to Stu Jackson, the NBA's executive vice president of basketball operations.

Cont'd ...

 

[fourteenandoh]

i believe the rule says you are guilty if you go onto the court. that could be 3 feet or 15 feet.

 

[tibor75]

yeah, the difference in distance doesn't and shouldn't matter. The only difference between the Duncan and Amare incidents is that the NBA considered one an "altercation" and the other was not.

 

[tibor75]

Why is it that when a team takes quicks shots and misses them its a horrible gameplan, and they are playing rushed (Doug Collins)....yet thus far tonight Golden State has played the same exact basketball they have been the entire series....making a few more, but its suddenly "playing with house money, they're relxed, and playing great basketball"? I hate commentators for the most part......I just wish some of these guys actually "saw" the game....all the intricate details really great fans see, yet so many commentators miss

Then he's a fool. Because during most GS games, the announcers will typically say that this is not the way you're supposed to play, but GS does it this way and you'll first think "these are horrible shots", but they win.

 

[fourteenandoh]

So there has been a lot of discussion about the ruling, but what is everyones opinion on the impact the ruling will or will not have on the series. I, for one, am not sure if the Suns can overcome it. Kurt Thomas will have to play his ass off, but if he does that still doesn't mean they will win becuase Diaw is the Suns' best defender. This means Ginobli or Bowen (I'm not sure who he was guarding) will probably have a field day. About the only thing the Suns have going for them is the fact that the game is at home.

 

[BB73]

i believe the rule says you are guilty if you go onto the court. that could be 3 feet or 15 feet.

yeah, the difference in distance doesn't and shouldn't matter. The only difference between the Duncan and Amare incidents is that the NBA considered one an "altercation" and the other was not.

I'll quote the rule. It's in Rule 12, Section 7-C. It doesn't say 'fight' and it doesn't say 'on the court'. Distance is a factor because it factors into 'immediate vicinity'.

http://www.nba.com/media/rule_book_2006-07.pdf

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 $50,000.

 

[fourteenandoh]

splitting hairs here, i know, but what constitutes an altercation? its open to interepretation. also, what exactly is immediate vicinity? that was the whole point of the article i quoted above. the rule is very vague.

 

[Flocka]

Don't mean to hijack the hijack, but this Golden State game should prove for a bad ass 4th quarter.

 

[billmac91]

2 unbelievably bad technicals called against Golden State.....especially Matt Barnes's