Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:Believe me I'm not anti-lawyer or legal, and perhaps I didn't make my point clear instead of missing it. I'm saying that he did what the rule states, and he can't be faulted for that. What I suggest he could have done was see that this situation is unique, and did what was necessary to make sure that the right thing was done in this instance. Such as requesting that the rule committee meet to discuss this instance and possibly amend the rule at this time. I understand why the rule was created, and I understand the importance of consistency and rule enforcement in general, but sometimes shit happens that requires people to act and set precedent, not simply follow it. If you believe there was no opportunity for flexibility and that as the commissioner he has no obiligation to look out for the best interest of his league, or that this outcome was the best interest for his league then I guess we just disagree.
you're completely missing the whole point of the regulation … fighting used to be a huge issue in the NBA, and this rule was meant to be a zero-tolerance approach towards ending fighting in the league, and it did a great job … the NBA determined that they wanted to stamp out fighting, and to do that they decided to impose this ZERO-TOLERANCE rule … the only way this rule works is if it's enforced the same to everyone
look at it this way, you're saying that "the outcome of strict rule enforcement is so disportionate to the supposed infraction and so prejudices one team who weren't the instigators of the initial action there needs to be some discretion" … the NBA has determined that because they want to end fighting, that leaving the bench is JUST AS BIG OF AN ISSUE as starting the fight and will be addressed on a zero-tolerance basis … therefore, in their eyes, the "outcome of strict rule enforcement" is NOT disproportionate to the supposed infraction, because they take leaving the bench SERIOUSLY
i'm sick of people saying that this is the "legal" conclusion while the "correct and sensible" conclusion is that they shouldn't have been suspended, and that the "lawyers" are fucking this all up … there is plenty of room for equity, negotiation, etc in the law, it's just that the NBA has always enforced this rule with a zero tolerance approach and they shouldn't do any different at this point
if they want to change their approach and decide that leaving the bench isn't as big of a deal to them now, then go ahead and do so, but the way the rule is written and currently enforced, stern had no other option
all of you people whining about this really just don't understand how seriously the NBA takes leaving the bench area during an altercation
by the way, it's obvious that amare was leaving the bench to join in the fray, why the hell else would he be running up the sideline?
The NBA debacle
Originally posted by bnyced0:sorry :) i have no useful knowledge of the NBA whatsoever, but wanted to contribute to the thread.
Originally posted by le sonick:You're such a homer! But he is damn good.
steve nash is the man!
Originally posted by Mobius:see, this is where you guys are just not getting it … the NBA sees leaving the bench during an altercation as a BIG DEAL and the "net result" of a fight and people leaving the bench, according to the NBA, should be that the bench-leavers are suspended and the fighters are suspended
Horry's foul was dirty and if the net result of him checking Nash into the scorer's table is a positive for the Spurs - then they got it absolutely wrong.
stern followed the NBA's policy and got it ABSOLUTELY RIGHT because they punished someone for leaving the bench … this isn't some subjective thing that's up for argument, by following both the letter and the spirit of the regulation, stern DID THE RIGHT THING
now, you may say that you don't think it's that big of a deal to leave the bench during an altercation … and i'd probably agree with you … but it's just not what the NBA currently believes … they'll probably go back and tweak this rule in the offseason, but until they do so, their policy is that bench-leavers should be punished just like the fighters, and to address this situation any differently than others would have simply been unfair
btw, i'm neither a suns nor spurs fan and i would have obviously preferred to see nobody suspended for this, but i just understand where the NBA is coming from, unlike all these incredulous sports talk radio callers
Originally posted by bnyced0:the whole purpose of this rule is to serve as a preventative measure against fighting, not really to punish the player for his specific actions … therefore, WHENEVER it's applied it will seem like an unfair decision
What I suggest he could have done was see that this situation is unique, and did what was necessary to make sure that the right thing was done in this instance.
any kind of deterrence rule or regulation like this will ALWAYS seem unfair when specifically applied, but when discussing such rules you have to look at the overarching GOAL of the rule, not it's specfic application
Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:That's a stretch. One guy punched somebody - Kermit Washington - and the league panicked. And in years since, fights have still happened at the same pace they were happening before. It wasn't a huge problem, it was a huge scare.
you're completely missing the whole point of the regulation … fighting used to be a huge issue in the NBA, and this rule was meant to be a zero-tolerance approach towards ending fighting in the league, and it did a great job …
Does the rule make players think twice before leaving the bench? Yes. Does it stop fights? Perhaps. But was fighting a huge problem in the NBA? Never.
Their real problem is cheap shots and dirty play. And they have never adequately addressed that.
Did the Commish get the ruling right? Yes. Should the rule be that strict? Not a chance.
Originally posted by vansmack:fine … as you know, it's all about perception … the NBA perceived that they had a big fighting problem, and this is how they addressed the issue … it still doesn't change the calculus
That's a stretch. One guy punched somebody - Kermit Washington - and the league panicked. And in years since, fights have still happened at the same pace they were happening before. It wasn't a huge problem, it was a huge scare.
and i agree with you, the rule shouldn't be this strict, but the NBA would disagree (until the owners get together and decide otherwise)
see, this is where you guys are just not getting it … the NBA sees leaving the bench during an altercation as a BIG DEAL and the "net result" of a fight and people leaving the bench, according to the NBA, should be that the bench-leavers are suspended and the fighters are suspendedStern may have gotten it "technically" right, but my point was that from a justice standpoint and a competitive standpoint it was wrong - and that during a game rules are interpretted on almost every play and this rule should be handled the same way. Horry harmed Nash. Stoudemire and Diaw harmed no one (Horry deserved retaliation in my opinion). They essentially flinched, realized they were in the wrong and went no further. And it turned the whole series. Yes, its problem with the rule itself, but it was an outrageous result for every fan who invested themselves in following this series.
[/QB]
See, this is where you're not getting it. Turning a sporting event into a law school classroom.
Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
Originally posted by Mobius:see, this is where you guys are just not getting it … the NBA sees leaving the bench during an altercation as a BIG DEAL and the "net result" of a fight and people leaving the bench, according to the NBA, should be that the bench-leavers are suspended and the fighters are suspended
Horry's foul was dirty and if the net result of him checking Nash into the scorer's table is a positive for the Spurs - then they got it absolutely wrong.
stern followed the NBA's policy and got it ABSOLUTELY RIGHT because they punished someone for leaving the bench … this isn't some subjective thing that's up for argument, by following both the letter and the spirit of the regulation, stern DID THE RIGHT THING
now, you may say that you don't think it's that big of a deal to leave the bench during an altercation … and i'd probably agree with you … but it's just not what the NBA currently believes … they'll probably go back and tweak this rule in the offseason, but until they do so, their policy is that bench-leavers should be punished just like the fighters, and to address this situation any differently than others would have simply been unfair
btw, i'm neither a suns nor spurs fan and i would have obviously preferred to see nobody suspended for this, but i just understand where the NBA is coming from, unlike all these incredulous sports talk radio callers
Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:I disagree with your assertion on the NBA's thoughts as well. I've yet to hear one person from the NBA say the rule is perfect and doesn't need to be changed. Everybody in the NBA thinks this application of the rule is too strict (and I don't count Popovich because if it was applied to his players in the same manner he would be on the side of every other coach, owner, NBA executive).
the rule shouldn't be this strict, but the NBA would disagree (until the owners get together and decide otherwise)
You are correct in arguing that Stern did what he had to do, but it's a stretch to say that by virtue of it's application Stern doesn't feel it's too strict. Even he said [prarphrasing] "look, I just apply the rules as they are given to me. If you want the rule changed, take with up with the owners (they set the rules). I'll even take it to the owners this offseason."
Don't confuse it's proper application with the thought that the rule isn't too strict in the NBA's eyes. Stern has his hands tied, that's all.
Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:Now I'm afraid you're missing my point, which ISN'T about the rule, whether it was applied accurately or not, or even if it's a good rule, or accomplishes it's goal. My point is that I believe he has the power to look at this specific situation and act in a way that I believe would have been in the best interest of everyone concerned, and that would have been to do whatever was necessary (ie convene the rules committee, etc). get this "right." You seem hung up and frustrated on everyone not seeing that he had no choice, or that the rule was followed correctly. That's NOT the argument I'm making, nor do I think it's the spirit of the argument others are making. Are we talking past one another here?
Originally posted by bnyced0:the whole purpose of this rule is to serve as a preventative measure against fighting, not really to punish the player for his specific actions … therefore, WHENEVER it's applied it will seem like an unfair decision
What I suggest he could have done was see that this situation is unique, and did what was necessary to make sure that the right thing was done in this instance.
any kind of deterrence rule or regulation like this will ALWAYS seem unfair when specifically applied, but when discussing such rules you have to look at the overarching GOAL of the rule, not it's specfic application
Originally posted by bnyced0:Actually, this is the one thing I think Hoya got right. Nothing gives Stern that power and he can't do it (they're already under enough scrutiny for bias/racism as it is). If the blame falls on NBA brass, it's for not fixing this a long time ago before it got to this point. This rule has been dumb for years.
My point is that I believe he has the power to look at this specific situation and act in a way that I believe would have been in the best interest of everyone concerned, and that would have been to do whatever was necessary (ie convene the rules committee, etc). get this "right."
The one certain thing I think comes from this is that it's no longer possible to wonder why people stopped watching the NBA.
People all stopped watching the NBA because soccer was so much more exciting.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by bnyced0:Actually, this is the one thing I think Hoya got right. Nothing gives Stern that power and he can't do it (they're already under enough scrutiny for bias/racism as it is). If the blame falls on NBA brass, it's for not fixing this a long time ago before it got to this point. This rule has been dumb for years.
My point is that I believe he has the power to look at this specific situation and act in a way that I believe would have been in the best interest of everyone concerned, and that would have been to do whatever was necessary (ie convene the rules committee, etc). get this "right."
The one certain thing I think comes from this is that it's no longer possible to wonder why people stopped watching the NBA.
Originally posted by vansmack:What I mean by power, is that he has the ability to TRY to do whatever is necessary to make this right, no he probably doesn't have the authority but I think he has the obiligation to try to do the right thing. These are number rules, and he the phuckin commissioner if you're saying that he can't raise a subject, discuss it, and try to make a change, you know what I really don't phuckin care enough to carry on. If you believe his position is written, and defined to the point where he has no effect on any policy, then that's fine I view leadership differently.
Originally posted by bnyced0:Actually, this is the one thing I think Hoya got right. Nothing gives Stern that power and he can't do it (they're already under enough scrutiny for bias/racism as it is). If the blame falls on NBA brass, it's for not fixing this a long time ago before it got to this point. This rule has been dumb for years.
My point is that I believe he has the power to look at this specific situation and act in a way that I believe would have been in the best interest of everyone concerned, and that would have been to do whatever was necessary (ie convene the rules committee, etc). get this "right."
The one certain thing I think comes from this is that it's no longer possible to wonder why people stopped watching the NBA.
Originally posted by bnyced0:I'm not sure you're clear on who's really in charge of the NBA or what the definition of a Commissioner is. He answers to 30 owners, not the 19 fans the NBA has left.
if you're saying that he can't raise a subject, discuss it, and try to make a change, you know what I really don't phuckin care enough to carry on. If you believe his position is written, and defined to the point where he has no effect on any policy, then that's fine I view leadership differently.
You can view leadership anyway you'd like, but in this case, like any other professional sports league, you're dealing with an Oligarchy, and these owners don't like to give up much power, so they appoint a Commissioner, who's main job is to handle disputes between owners and follow the rules they set for him. They've been very careful to not allow the commissioner to be too powerful, and that's what's happening here.
They're not in it for the benefit of the fans, they're out to make money. You can think Stern is the weakest person on the planet when it comes to basketball, and you're probably right, but he's weak because the owners make him weak, so that's where you should direct your anger.
Honestly, if he decided to change the rule in this case for the good of the game, like we'd all like to see, who do you think the first person to call the Commissioners office would be? Peter Holt, because he'd stand to lose millions if his team weren't to move on to the next round because of an unwarranted decision by the Commissioner.
The Commissioner has the power to change the rule, but he has to do so at the next owners meeting - that's how the owners set it up. And that's where your blame and anger should be.
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:no one is going to watch the epl next year after the fa didnt dock west ham points for using illegal argentines
People all stopped watching the NBA because soccer was so much more exciting.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by bnyced0:Actually, this is the one thing I think Hoya got right. Nothing gives Stern that power and he can't do it (they're already under enough scrutiny for bias/racism as it is). If the blame falls on NBA brass, it's for not fixing this a long time ago before it got to this point. This rule has been dumb for years.
My point is that I believe he has the power to look at this specific situation and act in a way that I believe would have been in the best interest of everyone concerned, and that would have been to do whatever was necessary (ie convene the rules committee, etc). get this "right."
The one certain thing I think comes from this is that it's no longer possible to wonder why people stopped watching the NBA.
oh wait
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:great argument, rhett … if hours and hours of sports radio time are going to be devoted to this subject, we might as well spend such time discussing the issue rationally … what would you prefer, just just screaming about how the suns got screwed?
See, this is where you're not getting it. Turning a sporting event into a law school classroom.
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:only in DC :roll:
See, this is where you're not getting it. Turning a sporting event into a law school classroom.
What bnyced0 said.
QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
QUOTE]Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:great argument, rhett … if hours and hours of sports radio time are going to be devoted to this subject, we might as well spend such time discussing the issue rationally … what would you prefer, just just screaming about how the suns got screwed?
See, this is where you're not getting it. Turning a sporting event into a law school classroom.
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:That's probably not why, but the World Cup average was a 2.6 Rating in 2006, about the same as what the NBA playoffs are currently at, and there's no way a Game 7 Final of any of the remaining NBA teams comes anywhere near the 7.0 Rating the World Cup Final received.
People all stopped watching the NBA because soccer was so much more exciting.
And they say Americans hate soccer. I say Americans hate the NBA. They're pretty equal in flopping these days.
Originally posted by bnyced0:yes, I definitely think we are … all I was trying to say is that:
Are we talking past one another here?
a) Stern had no other choice
b) The "spirit of the rule" (to deter fighting by punishing bench-leavers during altercations regardless of the context) WAS followed
the NBA obviously thought about all of these scenarios when implementing the rule and implicitly said that they value this rule and its deterrence of fighting more than any "unfair" consequences that it may wreak.
is the outcome wrong and unfair? of course, but people complaining about this don't seem to understand that you can HATE this decision but still say it was the right thing to do … so you can argue about (1) why you think it was unfair and (2) that stern should have acted differently, but it's too easy and convenient to mix these two arguments
the owners will obviously change the rule in the offseason, but as of now all Stern could do was enforce what was in front of him.