|
Post by khalfie on May 17, 2007 7:18:15 GMT -6
"If you leave the bench... you get suspended..."
This rule doesn't need to be changed... doesn't need to be tweeked... it definitely does not need to be INTERPRETED!
It is every man's duty to be accountable and responsible to his team... its Amare's and Dious fault they were suspended... theirs and theirs alone!
As coaches... we have to all agree... that no matter how much we may not like a rule... its our fault when they aren't followed!
|
|
|
Post by airitout616 on May 17, 2007 7:21:08 GMT -6
Yea BUT the NBA needs to address every case. Earlier Duncan and another teamate left the bench area when a Spur was fouled hard on a dunk. If the suns get punished the spurs should as well.
|
|
|
Post by olinecoach61 on May 17, 2007 7:26:59 GMT -6
Common sense should prevail. Maintaining a bad rule for the sake of a rule is just stupid.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on May 17, 2007 8:59:31 GMT -6
What!?
Have you guys forgotten that quickly? The Brawl in Detroit... Rudy Tom almost dying?
This rule was instituted for a reason... and the reason is... when players leave the bench bad things happen...
What are you going to do after you leave the bench? Help the teammate up? There are people already on the floor to do that... people on the sidelines paid to do that?
Why would you want interpretation... I can't believe some analyst have the gaul to say, "I think they weren't going to do anything..." THINK? THat's why they have the rule... no need to think... no need to worry about what other players think, when they see the mob charging off the bench.
A Bad rule? The only thing bad was the players lack of discipline to control themselves. Haven't seen too many bad rules in athletics... they are there for a reason... and even if you disagree with the rules... you still have to follow them.
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on May 17, 2007 9:04:05 GMT -6
"If you leave the bench... you get suspended..." This rule doesn't need to be changed... doesn't need to be tweeked... it definitely does not need to be INTERPRETED! It is every man's duty to be accountable and responsible to his team... its Amare's and Dious fault they were suspended... theirs and theirs alone! As coaches... we have to all agree... that no matter how much we may not like a rule... its our fault when they aren't followed! Khal - I have to disagree...if you watch the tape, those two guys took what? 5-6 steps before they went back? It was a complete non-issue at the time and those two guys probably didn't even think about until after the game when they were told they couldn't play. The NBA had a serious image problem 5 years ago or so and in an effort to clean that image up, the pendulum has swung way to the opposite direction. The NBA is now a league where any sense of individual celebration or enthusiasm and camraderie between teammates is frowned upon. All those two guys were doing was making sure that the best player on their team was OK. When it was obvious that he was, they sat back down. What about Horry? He takes out one of the marquee players in the NBA and he only gets 2 games? So...intentionally fouling a guy in a way that could have caused a serious injury is only 1 suspended game worse than taking 5-6 steps to make sure that the best guy on your team is OK? Dumb rule. Needs to be re-evaluated. let the game be decided on the floor, not in the league front office.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on May 17, 2007 9:12:10 GMT -6
"If you leave the bench... you get suspended..." This rule doesn't need to be changed... doesn't need to be tweeked... it definitely does not need to be INTERPRETED! It is every man's duty to be accountable and responsible to his team... its Amare's and Dious fault they were suspended... theirs and theirs alone! As coaches... we have to all agree... that no matter how much we may not like a rule... its our fault when they aren't followed! Khal - I have to disagree...if you watch the tape, those two guys took what? 5-6 steps before they went back? It was a complete non-issue at the time and those two guys probably didn't even think about until after the game when they were told they couldn't play. The NBA had a serious image problem 5 years ago or so and in an effort to clean that image up, the pendulum has swung way to the opposite direction. The NBA is now a league where any sense of individual celebration or enthusiasm and camraderie between teammates is frowned upon. All those two guys were doing was making sure that the best player on their team was OK. When it was obvious that he was, they sat back down. What about Horry? He takes out one of the marquee players in the NBA and he only gets 2 games? So...intentionally fouling a guy in a way that could have caused a serious injury is only 1 suspended game worse than taking 5-6 steps to make sure that the best guy on your team is OK? Dumb rule. Needs to be re-evaluated. let the game be decided on the floor, not in the league front office. Got to disagree Cat... The fact that you guys have to insinuate if they were going to do something or not is the problem... Nash gets a hard foul... several people run to his aid... what can they possibly due if he has a career ending injury? Nothing but fight! What if its just a game ending injury? Nothing but fight! What if its nothing... as it was... nothing but fight, or go back to the seat they shouldn't have left in the first place! I think it was Raja Bell that came to Nash's rescue on the floor... Horry saw him coming, and quickly put a forearm to Bell's face... guess he didn't know Raja was just coming to the medical aid of nash... Here's the deal... Nash is a grown man... he doesn't need other men to come to his rescue on the BASKETBALL court. Any rule that stops that, no matter how harsh is a good rule... matter of fact, the harsher the better. Those players no the ramifications of leaving the bench but they did any way... shame on them... not the rule! Football is one of the hardest hitting sports there is... kid gets blind sided on the last play of the game... how many of your players are allowed to run on the field and "see if he's ok?" Or am I wrong... and the tradition in football is for the entire bench to run on the field and make sure their teammates are ok? You guys are blinded by the fact that nash is a little bitty guy playing a big boy sport, and getting pushed around because of it... he's a man... treat him like such... he'll be all right!
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on May 17, 2007 9:17:56 GMT -6
After reading this...I had a vision of bullpen pitchers running from the bullpen to join a fight.
HUGE difference though.
and whats that? Fans are within arms reach of players.
5 or 6 steps is 4 or 5 to many.
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on May 17, 2007 9:34:14 GMT -6
Got to disagree Cat... The fact that you guys have to insinuate if they were going to do something or not is the problem... But they didn't do anything! I would go as far as to argue that what they did was a natural reaction to the situation. They instinctively stood up and then, for whatever reason (they saw Nash was OK, they realized they shouldn't be off the bench, whatever) they sat back down. Nash gets a hard foul... several people run to his aid... what can they possibly due if he has a career ending injury? Nothing but fight! What if its just a game ending injury? Nothing but fight! What if its nothing... as it was... nothing but fight, or go back to the seat they shouldn't have left in the first place! But there was no fight! The two guys in question went back to the bench before anything happened. They walked back, sat down, and the whole situation was diffused. Happens in football all of the time...kid hits another kid a little late or maybe grabs a little cloth...kids jaw at each other or even make a move toward each other. Other kids or officials break them up and they go back to the huddle...how many times does a suspension or even a penalty result from that? Up here, hardly ever! Here's the deal... Nash is a grown man... he doesn't need other men to come to his rescue on the BASKETBALL court. Any rule that stops that, no matter how harsh is a good rule... matter of fact, the harsher the better. Those players no the ramifications of leaving the bench but they did any way... shame on them... not the rule! Again...nothing happened other than two guys stood up and took 5 steps. If you are going to penalize someone, penalize them because they did something, not because the MIGHT do something. Or am I wrong... and the tradition in football is for the entire bench to run on the field and make sure their teammates are ok? Are you trying to argue that there has never been situations when a football team charged the field when one of their players was the victim of a cheap shot? Certainly is doesn't happen EVERY time in football, but it doesn't happen EVERY time in the NBA, either. You guys are blinded by the fact that nash is a little bitty guy playing a big boy sport, and getting pushed around because of it... he's a man... treat him like such... he'll be all right! As far as I am concerned, the size of Nash has nothing to do with it...my point is that what those two guys did was instinctive and they IMMEDIATELY realized that they had made a mistake and they went back to the bench. If anything, I think they should be commended for that. The purpose of rules is to make the game run smoothly and allow the outcome to be decided by the players. This rule accomplishes neither of those goals. Do similar rules exist in the NFL or MLB? What happens to MLB players who leave the dugout during a brawl? What about NFL players who leave the sideline during an altercation? Is every player suspended or just players who throw punches?
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on May 17, 2007 9:36:44 GMT -6
5 or 6 steps is 4 or 5 to many. According to the rule, it doesn't matter how many steps were taken. IMO, that is the problem.
|
|
|
Post by gridiron on May 17, 2007 9:42:23 GMT -6
How about Tim Duncan leaving the "bench area" earlier in the series? The only thing that stops him from being suspended is the players involved running down the court. If his teammate is hurt, play stops, and he is on the court. So basically Horry knocking down Nash hard enough to stop play is the difference. Leaving the bench for a "major incident" is bad, leaving the bench for a "minor incident" is OK. Is that right?
In the NFL, a "little" quarterback gets roughed and a "big" OL protects him and might get flagged. He is not ejected and then suspended another game.
|
|
bhb
Junior Member
Posts: 259
|
Post by bhb on May 17, 2007 9:47:33 GMT -6
I hate "zero tolerance " rules because all that does is give people an excuse not to use their brains.. The reason this rule is in place is to prevent bench clearing brawls- it did that- sure, Stoudemaire and Diow got up, but they never entered the fray because they knew they could get suspended- actually assistant coaches knew it and made sure they didn't come on the court- well, ok their big toes actually did crtoss the line, but c'mon- the rule worked.. No suspensions were needed- other than Horry..
|
|
zexx14
Sophomore Member
Every failure carries with it the seed for an equivalent or greater success
Posts: 169
|
Post by zexx14 on May 17, 2007 10:08:40 GMT -6
You guys are beginning to sound like the students in my classroom and the parents in the stands. IT IS THEIR OWN FAULT. I'm with khalfie, they broke the rule...they pay the price. It surprises me to see coaches on this site making excuses for these players, questioning the rule, evaluating what they were thinking, and questioning how many steps they took. Good rule, bad rule, useless rule...it doesn't matter in this case--They knew it,-They violated it. Game over.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on May 17, 2007 10:18:15 GMT -6
I am extremely surprised to see how many coaches have a problem with the enforcement of this rule...
How many people drive drunk, but don't do anything... the rule is don't drive drunk... if we catch you doing it, you get suspended!
And this malarky about instincts... it is not instinctual to come to the rescue of others... it is thought out and calculated... fight or flight is only germane to one's self... you always have to think about protecting another... that's instincts.
Lucky us... I guess the latent thought of the penalties for leaving the bench kicked in... even if too late. Penalties so severe, stops a man in his tracks... or at least gets an assistant to stop a man in his tracks. Just because this situation didn't turn into the brawl at the palace, does not mean it should not be enforced. You ajudicate based on the worst case scenerio, not the best case... You can play chicken on your motorcycle and never get hurt... but there are still laws against reckless driving!
Again... these are kids on the field... not kids from the sideline. You make my argument for me. No players on the court were suspended... it was the ones on the bench... who for whatever reason thought their presence could heal the sick!
Kids never leave the bench and get on the field, when there's an altercation... if they do, they are gone for that game and the following weeks game... tell me I'm wrong! And you disagree with that?
They did do something... they broke the rule that states you do not leave the bench during an altercation... it is one of the most serious rules instituted in basketball... similar to betting on baseball as a player, and paying a player in college.
No... I'm saying... when that has occurred, players were suspended... I still remember the officials reviewing the South Carolina v Clemson game, suspending players a week or two later.
It will never happen, as long as players know there is zero tolernce when leaving the bench during an altercation.
What mistake? According to you, that's not a mistake... and if it is a mistake... then dag nab it... there are consequences and repercussions.
Again... why is that player getting up? What can he possibly do? Wrong is wrong!
The rule states, there must be an altercation... there was none... can't break the rule if there's not an altercation... the only thing that stops him from being suspended is that there was no altercation... but you want him punished for that?
You think the rule is too harsh, but yet its not harsh enough? You want it to be subjective, but the fact that it is clear and specific enough to not get a guy kicked out when nothing happend makes it wrong?
Again, those big ol linemen, did not come running off the sidelines to help their qb... they were already on the field.
Let's keep this conversation... apples to apples.
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on May 17, 2007 10:19:51 GMT -6
You guys are beginning to sound like the students in my classroom and the parents in the stands. IT IS THEIR OWN FAULT. I'm with khalfie, they broke the rule...they pay the price. It surprises me to see coaches on this site making excuses for these players, questioning the rule, evaluating what they were thinking, and questioning how many steps they took. Good rule, bad rule, useless rule...it doesn't matter in this case--They knew it,-They violated it. Game over. Well put Zexx... I too am very shocked by the responses of the coaches... Did not expect this at all...
|
|
|
Post by gridiron on May 17, 2007 10:58:10 GMT -6
"The rule states, there must be an altercation... there was none... can't break the rule if there's not an altercation... the only thing that stops him from being suspended is that there was no altercation... but you want him punished for that?"
Being on the court for no reason is OK as long as they don't interfere with play? Just trying to clarify.
"You think the rule is too harsh, but yet its not harsh enough? You want it to be subjective, but the fact that it is clear and specific enough to not get a guy kicked out when nothing happend makes it wrong?"
The Suns players didn't do anything either. They didn't touch one person who was on the court.
Maybe we should just sit back and accept all rules. Never question if they are just or not.
|
|
|
Post by jjkuenzel on May 17, 2007 11:11:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on May 17, 2007 11:27:32 GMT -6
To be penalized for nothing more then being concerned about you team mate is silly. What they did is almost strict human reaction when something happen to someone you care about and respect. They went after no one & threatened no one they were penalized for taking 5-6 steps yet the guy who did the deed gets only one more game they they? Explain how that's right?
|
|
|
Post by superpower on May 17, 2007 11:32:26 GMT -6
What is everyone getting so worked up about? It's the stinkin' NBA! ;D
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on May 17, 2007 11:34:15 GMT -6
How many people drive drunk, but don't do anything... the rule is don't drive drunk... if we catch you doing it, you get suspended! If you drive drunk, you could kill someone or cause major property damage. I think we can agree that probably won't happen in an NBA game. And, to your comment that people who get caught drinking and driving, no, you are wrong. People convicted of drinking and driving do not always get their licenses suspended. There are all sorts of loopholes that people fall through and judges are often able to use their discrection. Doesn't happen often, but it can! Lucky us... I guess the latent thought of the penalties for leaving the bench kicked in... even if too late. Penalties so severe, stops a man in his tracks... or at least gets an assistant to stop a man in his tracks. If a guy is going to fight, he is going to fight, the consequences be damned...many states have capitol punishment for murder yet there are still murders committed in those states. Just because this situation didn't turn into the brawl at the palace, does not mean it should not be enforced. You ajudicate based on the worst case scenerio, not the best case... You can play chicken on your motorcycle and never get hurt... but there are still laws against reckless driving! Sure, but once again, it comes down to discretion. A prosecutor can choose to not charge someone with a crime even though that person clearly committed said crime. Guy in my neighborhood had a mysterious fire at his house a few years ago (about 1AM). Guy had just bought a great big brand new boat but the truck he had at the time was to small to pull it. Coincidentally, the fire started in his small truck and destroyed it. 2 days later, he is driving around in a brand-new F-250 that he bought with the payoff from the insurance company. In that case, the insurance agent new darned well that this guy torched his truck but it was simply cheaper to cut this guy a check for the value of his old truck than it was to pursue an arson investigation and pay for the subsequent court costs. Again... these are kids on the field... not kids from the sideline. You make my argument for me. No players on the court were suspended... it was the ones on the bench... who for whatever reason thought their presence could heal the sick! Kids never leave the bench and get on the field, when there's an altercation... if they do, they are gone for that game and the following weeks game... tell me I'm wrong! And you disagree with that? I will tell you this...if something similar happened in an IHSA playoff game and kids on the sideline take as few steps on the court at the two Spurs players...no suspensions! Again, those big ol linemen, did not come running off the sidelines to help their qb... they were already on the field. Let's keep this conversation... apples to apples. Again, because you avoided the question...how many MLB players get suspended during a brawl for entering the field of play if they don't throw a punch?
|
|
|
Post by coachnichols on May 17, 2007 11:38:11 GMT -6
Who is comparing this to a DUI? Come on!
Yes it's a rule. I think some coaches are arguing that it's one of the rules that isn't written well or very clearly, and that it should be changed. How can someone argue that it should be looked at? It seems to cut and dry; you come out, you're gone.
Forget Nash being a "little guy". He's a teammate of those guys who came out. Their teammate got mauled by the shoulder of Horry and that's BS. So they stepped up. They weren't even close to Horry or the other guys pushing each other like girls. Coaches and an official were in between. Does walking out concerned about your teammate and a BS call worth a 1 game suspension? The rule says yes, but many on here like myself, think the rule needs to be reworded to make allowances for an incident like this that is stupid to say the least.
I'm sure there are rules in our game that need to be tweaked and/or reworded to better reflect the times, our sensibilities, and the culture of the world in 2007. Now, I'm not trying to upset any older coaches who feel that times have changed, but the game shouldn't and there is nothing wrong with the rules. I'm also not trying to "start a fight" about this. Just some thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on May 17, 2007 11:54:45 GMT -6
The other thing that nobody has brought up is that emotion is a big part of any athletic contest...we want our kids to play with emotion and intensity.
Those 2 Suns players...they got caught up in the emotion of the moment but, before any damage was done, they found their heads.
I think that a clear distinction can be drawn...you recognize that an athletic event (like Game 4 of the NBA Playoffs) is going to feature some big, tough, ultra-competetive guys with Type-A personalities...you give those guys a little room to be emotional. Like I said...they backed off before any damage was done.
What would have happened if one of them threw a punch? Would the penalty be more or less?
|
|
zexx14
Sophomore Member
Every failure carries with it the seed for an equivalent or greater success
Posts: 169
|
Post by zexx14 on May 17, 2007 11:57:52 GMT -6
Where would this country be if we never questioned and/or fought against unjust rules/laws? It is the American way and it is the democratic way. If a law is unjust, it is our duty to challenge it and to do everything in our power to change it.
Rosa Parks challenged an unjust law and started a movement to get rid of that law. She was however, still arrested for violating that law, and even after the law was revoked, she still kept that record. The Black students that sat at the lunch counter were protesting an unjust law, but they were still arrested.
The point is, these Gentlemen violated the rules and must therefore deal with the consequences regardless of whether or not it is a just rule.
Argueing whether or not this rule is fair, is a another discussion altogether, but it is not a reason to avoid enforcement of the rule.
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on May 17, 2007 12:20:09 GMT -6
I also wanted to add that the two players should be suspended because they clearly violated a rule.
That doesn't mean that the rule isn't dumb.
|
|
|
Post by coachnichols on May 17, 2007 12:30:26 GMT -6
Can't we make it this discussion? Of course they should have been penalized under this rule. That's why we're talking about this! The rule needs to be changed.
Wow this is turning into a "hollier than thou" production. "Well, they should have known better than to go out there." "A rules a rule..." "Spurs kept their composure..." Blah, blah. 2 guys got supspended for hustling 10-15 feet toward a {censored} play by a has-been player. They might have been going to get in someone's face. They might have been going to their teammate. They might have been trying to get a look at some girls cleavage in the 2nd row. Zero-tolerance rules are very touchy. Most of our laws have grey areas, but our basketball rules can't have any?
|
|
|
Post by bulldogoption on May 17, 2007 13:20:02 GMT -6
I am perplexed as to why this is a dumb rule? It seems that the only reason the Sun's players got off the bench was because of Horry's hard foul on the MVP. If the MVP had tripped over a line on his own I don't think they would have come running out. The point of the rule seems to be to make sure no brawls occur. It works right?
If the rule were changed what should it say?
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on May 17, 2007 13:23:47 GMT -6
I am perplexed as to why this is a dumb rule? It seems that the only reason the Sun's players got off the bench was because of Horry's hard foul on the MVP. If the MVP had tripped over a line on his own I don't think they would have come running out. The point of the rule seems to be to make sure no brawls occur. It works right? If the rule were changed what should it say? How about if you come off the bench during an altercation and strike an opposing player or attempt to strike an opposing player, you get suspended? Or, if you get off the bench but return in a timely manner, you get a warning but no suspension?
|
|
|
Post by SAcoach on May 17, 2007 14:04:39 GMT -6
The NBA is doing what they do best...market their sport at whatever cost... the Spurs are nasty, dirty etc. what a bunch of crock...for the longest time the Spurs were the nicest people in the NBA and suddenly they have now become the dirty team everyone wants to hate...finally the NBA can market the Spurs as a physical (funny they used to be soft the last few years with the same players) team Does it really matter that they suspended the two players that had to be held back by their assistant coaches in order not to go further onto the court... Who knows what happens next...if this if that... rule is clear cut ...don't blame the Spurs or the League ....blame the brawls ( pistons vs pacers, heat vs knicks, Nuggets vs Knicks (wait who is the dirty team here?) Do we forget this image ...Which cost SA a championship After the incident occured "I thought we did a great job of keeping our composure together," Duncan said. Composure....The Suns are not old enough or mature enough to have it so they got penalized
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on May 17, 2007 15:52:32 GMT -6
...don't blame the Spurs or the League ....blame the brawls ( pistons vs pacers, heat vs knicks, Nuggets vs Knicks (wait who is the dirty team here?) And I think this is what it comes down to...like I said earlier, the public image of the NBA was at a real lowpoint 5 years ago or so... few marketable fan-friendly superstars and just a bunch of wannabe thugs selling overpriced shoes and bad rap albums... This rule was designed to give the impression that the NBA is cracking down on the ego-centric, self-aggrandizing fan-unfriendly style of the NBA of the late '90s and early '00s. I just don't like zero tolerance...understand that professional athletes are emotional, intense, and highly competitive individuals...give these guys a little room, that's all I am saying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2007 16:28:31 GMT -6
My argument would almost be word for word what Wildcat is saying, so I won't get repetitive. I will say this, though--David Stern is obviously a great business man based on the NBA's success. However, in terms of disciplining the players, I think he gets it wrong almost every time. I really do. And before you say that's Stu Jackson's job (I think that's his name), Stern admitted to Dan Patrick that he gets final say in all disciplinary cases.
|
|
|
Post by saintrad on May 17, 2007 16:40:31 GMT -6
it's the NBA....who really cares about the overpaid cry-babies and what happens? All i know is this just another reason why i can't stand pro sports, but especially the NBA.
|
|