# 7 games for Sheed? Unbelievable.



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

that's hard to fathom.

I hope the Blazers take this one to court.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Where did you hear/see/read this? It's not up on ESPN.com or Oregonlive.com.

A seven game suspension for what alledegly happened would seem extreme, if he gets that.

Ed O.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

turn your radio on.


KFXX 1520AM

just listened to the entire conference call between Stu Jax and the media. He would not reveal the specifics of what happened.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't live in Portland.  And I don't feel like having to listen to something when I can read it.

With that said, I found it on *CNNsi.com*.

Wow. That seems SUPER-severe.

How long was Shaq suspended for when he smacked and knocked down Ostertag a few years ago in the tunnel?

Ed O.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

Jax said they protect their refs. Evidently they don't protect their players though, Chris Mills only got 3 games for going after a player after the game.


Until I here the facts from witnesses, I think 7 games is way way out of touch with reality.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

Damn, that is a long time, he better appeal!

-Petey


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

Unbelievable!!!!!!

Hopefully the Blazers appeal this or (actually I don't hope for this) we find out that there was a lot more to this than we know.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I wonder how long Donaghy is going to be suspended for... he reportedly cursed Wallace after being cursed by Rasheed.

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out, but it's not good for Rasheed. Maybe he'll learn to let things go a little bit 

Also, on another bright side: we get so see how ready ZR is in a starting role...

Did anyone see the job that this same ref crew (Javie, Donaghy, Wall) did last night in Golden State? Sura was ejected for staring down a ref, Kendall Gill got a T, and Jason Richardson and Troy Murphy were each tagged once.

That crew looks like they're out of control to me.

Ed O.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

seriously, I think instead of appealing this in the league, they should head straight to a court room.

this is beyond reality.

I want hard facts to justify a 7 game suspension. Without that, the NBA comes off like a power hungry out of control group.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

*What doesn't break us will make us stronger.*

Expect the guys to be fightin' mad tonight with fire coming out their nostrils. Poor Wolves....

They don't call 'em Blazers for nothing!!!!

Go Blazers!!!


----------



## FB (Dec 31, 2002)

OMG....that's the most rediculous thing I've ever heard in my life (assuming things happened as they were reported). :upset: 

This will be appealed or we'll hear a whole different story involving a lot more than a few cuss words.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

7 games is a JOKE! He shouldn't be suspended PERIOD! This makes it clear that the NBA has it in for the Trail Blazers.


----------



## Ballin101 (Nov 4, 2002)

I agree with the comment about the ref crew. Those guys are out of control. If you saw the Golden State game last night, you would have seen how nuts these guys can go. They T up one guy, and then the next guy who even mumbles something or more than glances at them gets T-ed up too. Murphy and Richardson got T-ed up for nothing, and so did Sura the second time. I mean, if it were for kicking the scorer's table, which it was supposedly for, then Musselman would have been gone too because he did it twice. Javie is a damn control freak.


----------



## brewmaster (Dec 31, 2002)

Question:

Can we put Daniels, Damon, or McInnis on the injured list and activate Dudley or Boumte Boumte?

Otherwise, we're looking pretty weak at power forward/center to the next 7 games.


----------



## Tommyboy (Jan 3, 2003)

The NBA is losing sight of one simple fact.


The NBA is nothing without its players. The players make the league, the players make the plays, the players are why people watch and care. Without the players, they are nothing.


that being said, it seems to me like the NBA is more interested in its refs and its TV ratings than its own players.


this is a recipe for problems down the road. At some point, the players could just unify and refuse to play games until they change refs.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't agree, Tommyboy. Players will come and go. The integrity of the league is paramount, and maintaining proper deference to figures of authority (refs) is an important goal.

The main issue I have here is the insane length involved. Rick Fox was involved in a sprawling, multi-part brawl and got 6 games... NVE and Magic Johnson have pushed officials and (iirc) didn't get 7 games. I'm sure there are other (non-Laker (I don't know why those three Lakers examples came to me; didn't want to imply pro-LA bias in this post)) examples, but 7 games seems entirely out of whack, based on what I know about the situation.

Another issue is this ref crew, in particular. Steve Javie has a LONG history of being overly sensitive/trigger-happy on the T's, and it seems like it's rubbed off on the entire crew. I haven't done any sort of study in terms of the number of T's they give a game versus other crews, but anectodally, at least, it seems they are out of focus in how they're calling the games.

Ed O.


----------



## brewmaster (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm not going to argue if 7 games is deserving or not. It might be.

We actually don't know what was said between Wallace and the ref. Maybe Wallace actually threatened him. If he did, the seven game suspension is deserving.

I know some of you are saying the league is out to get the Blazers. I won't say that, because we all don't know the official facts of the incident.

Also, the league could have suspended Sheed for a game (instead of fining him) for going into the stands at Golden State. But they didn't.

Until the facts come out, I am going to withhold judgement on the 7 game suspension.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>brewmaster</b>!
> We actually don't know what was said between Wallace and the ref. Maybe Wallace actually threatened him. If he did, the seven game suspension is deserving.


I disagree. If he threatened him and there was potential imminent bodily harm (like he walked up to the ref and shouted at him from 2 feet away), I guess I could see a 7 game suspension. If Wallace was shouting, "I'm going to mess you up" from 45 feet away, a seven game suspension is, IMO, ridiculous.

Ed O.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tommyboy</b>
> KFXX 1520AM
> 
> just listened to the entire conference call between Stu Jax and the media. He would not reveal the specifics of what happened.


This is mind-boggling. Jackson owes the fans and the other players in the league an explanation for the severity of this suspension. 

Apparently yelling at a ref from a distance after the game is 7 times worse than bumping a ref. Apparently it is 7 times worse than throwing a towel at a ref.

Look, if Rasheed made physical threats against the guy, he deserves a nice long suspension to think about it. He must have done something like that - but will we ever know? There is clearly a line being drawn here, but what is that line? Will players ever know what the line is?

Silence, IMO, is not an option for Jackson in this issue - especially when the media have gone to great lengths to point out that they were never close to each other when the "incident" took place.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

The *latest AP story* has this quote attributed to Jackson:

"He accosted a referee and threatened him." 

And the story also stated: "Jackson said there was no physical contact between Wallace and referee Tim Donaghy."

Accost (according to *Dictionary.com*) means "To approach and speak to boldly or aggressively, as with a demand or request."

So it seems that the NBA determined that Wallace DID move towards the ref(s) and threaten them... which seems at odds with previous reports.

Interesting.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

You can bet the players association will DEMAND specifics.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

_Jackson said prior indiscretions by Wallace were taken into account. _

Ed, as I had mentioned to you in another thread, Rasheed's reputation exceeds (my term - worse than preceeds) him - unfortunately. If a fair shake is to be gotten, he won't get it.


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

I don't see how this can be any worse than what Chris Mills did with Bonzi Wells!!:upset: This is just str8 up bull ****


----------



## PortlandActor (Dec 31, 2002)

The really sad part about all of this is that when the media looks back at this season in regard to Wallace's (and the Blazers') indescretions, what will be completely lost is the fact that Rasheed has really done an outstanding job thus far in controlling his temper and not getting hit with technicals this season. Considering just how bad the problem with his temper has been in recent years, and how much he has done to improve it, it's sad that this punishment is as harsh as it is and came when it did. I just hope he doesn't revert to his old ways because he feels "wronged" by the NBA establishment.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

The appeals process, as I've read, does work like baseball, in that you don't serve the penalty while it's under appeal.

The penalty is so utterly ridiculous (the league's explanation evidently states that the two never approached each other) that I can't imagine it holding up to an appeal. On the other hand, sometimes ridiculous things happen...twice.

<HR>

From FanBall:

News
The NBA suspended forward Rasheed Wallace for seven games for confronting and threatening an official following Wednesday night's victory over Memphis, ESPN.com reported. The referees mentioned an incident in their post-game report about Wallace and referee Tim Donaghy arguing roughly an hour after the game. Wallace received a technical from Donaghy during the game. The discussion never become violent and the two people involved never approached one another.

Views
We don't know if Wallace will appeal the suspension and play on Saturday, so fantasy owners should play it safe and get him out of their lineup.

<HR>

Additionally, I *do* like Tommyboy's suggestion that the Blazers consider taking this to court, if that's even possible. In the end, these *are* businesses that Stern is affecting with impunity. To *some* extent, NBA teams are obliged to accept it. It would be interesting to test how far Stern can take that.


----------



## sabas4mvp (Sep 23, 2002)

OMG F the NBA, I dont know if I will ever go to a game again...


I'm sure I'm just pissed off, but what the hell could wallace have said to get himself a 7 game suspension...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Additionally, I *do* like Tommyboy's suggestion that the Blazers consider taking this to court, if that's even possible. In the end, these *are* businesses that Stern is affecting with impunity. To *some* extent, NBA teams are obliged to accept it. It would be interesting to test how far Stern can take that.


The collective bargaining agreement provides for discipline of players by the league, and the team wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on in court, either.

It's possible that there's an arbitration process in place, but unless there was a dramatic, unique step taken by the NBA or a team (such as that involving Sprewell) I can't imagine that a court would override existing collective bargaining and contractual obligations to allow the Blazers or Wallace to sue at this point.

on another note, I wonder if the luxury tax is triggered if Portland's cap amount goes down by Wallace's reduced paycheck 

Ed O.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> The appeals process, as I've read, does work like baseball, in that you don't serve the penalty while it's under appeal.


I'm trying to read what the CBA says about appeals. So far, I've determined that a player can appeal to have a Grievance Arbitrator review the suspension if it results in him losing more than $25,000. This seems to be the case. I'll keep reading.


----------



## Sean (Jun 7, 2002)

what a load of dung. Sheed has been on much better behavior this year and they give him 7 games for arguing? The nba officials are proving time and time again that mark cuban is right. They really need to check themsleves.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*OK, here's what I've read in the CBA*

*Exhibit A* is the standard player contract. *6(a) & (b)* of this contract states that players agree that they will pay fines to the league. They are given the right to appeal, in which case the money goes into an interest-bearing account until the appeal is resolved.



According to *Article XXXI*, any fine or suspension that results in a loss of more than $25,000 is appealable to a Grievance Arbitrator process, as long as the appeal is made within 30 days. But there is nothing that I can find about a player being allowed to play during the appeals process.

And the process is lengthy. The League Office arranges to have the Arbitration Hearing (which has to take place in NY) at a time convenient to all parties. But they have to give each party 30 days written notice. Practically, this means the Arbitration Hearing would be at the end of February at the very earliest. There are a lot of things that have to happen in those 30 days.

Plus, if either party doesn't like the current League's Grievance Arbitrator, they can petition to have him or her replaced with someone else. That extends the process at least another month.

In other words, I can't find anything that allows Rasheed to play during the next 7 games. He can appeal, but only to recoup the money he'll lose.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: OK, here's what I've read in the CBA*



> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> 
> In other words, I can't find anything that allows Rasheed to play during the next 7 games. He can appeal, but only to recoup the money he'll lose.


Wait, that doesn't make sense. The money he'll lose isn't in fines to the league, but in pay from the Blazers. If he "recoups" that money, without getting to play, that means the Blazers are being forced to pay him for games he didn't play. That's a bit nonsensical..."Okay, we find in favour of Rasheed Wallace against the league. Therefore, the Blazers must pay a lot of money. It's only fair."

Unless the league had to pay Wallace his back-pay, instead of the team. Somehow, I can't imagine that being the case, either.

So, the only thing that makes sense is that Wallace can play during the suspension so that, if it's overturned or shortened, Wallace plays the games, gets paid and it's fair to everyone.

The key issue here is that the money being lost isn't fine money, but salary.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Wait, that doesn't make sense. The money he'll lose isn't in fines to the league, but in pay from the Blazers. If he "recoups" that money, without getting to play, that means the Blazers are being forced to pay him for games he didn't play. That's a bit nonsensical..."Okay, we find in favour of Rasheed Wallace against the league. Therefore, the Blazers must pay a lot of money. It's only fair."


What happens is that the Grievance Arbitrator decides how much money the team keeps and how much (if any) Rasheed gets. Yeah, it's a little strange, but here are the passages for you to read yourself:


_In the event the Player is fined and/or suspended by the Team or the NBA, the Team shall withhold the amount of the fine or, in the case of a suspension, the amount provided in Article VI of the NBA/NBPA Collective Bargaining Agreement from any Current Cash Compensation due or to become due to the Player with respect to the contract year in which the conduct resulting in the fine and/or the suspension occurred (or a subsequent contract year if the Player has received all Current Cash Compensation due to him for the then current contract year). If, at the time the Player is fined and/or suspended, the Current Cash Compensation remaining to be paid to the Player under this Contract is not sufficient to cover such fine and/or suspension, then the Player agrees promptly to pay the amount directly to the Team. In no case shall the Player permit any such fine and/or suspension to be paid on his behalf by anyone other than himself._


_ Any Current Cash Compensation withheld from or paid by the Player pursuant to this paragraph 6 shall be retained by the Team or the League, as the case may be, unless the Player contests the fine and/or suspension by initiating a timely Grievance in accordance with the provisions of the NBA/NBPA Collective Bargaining Agreement. If such Grievance is initiated and it satisfies Article XXXI, Section 13 of the NBA/NBPA Collective Bargaining Agreement, the amount withheld from the Player shall be placed in an interest-bearing account, pursuant to Article XXXI, Section 9 of such Agreement, pending the resolution of the Grievance. _


_In the event that a Grievance challenging a Commissioner or Team-imposed fine and/or suspension is filed in accordance with this Article, the amount of any fine or salary lost by virtue of the suspension shall be deposited in a separate interest-bearing account maintained for such fines or suspension-related amounts. The NBA shall provide written notice to the Players Association of the date and amount of each deposit made pursuant to this Section 9, and the custodian of the account shall deliver monthly statements reflecting the investment activity in such account to the NBA and the Players Association. In the absence of agreement between the NBA and the Players Association, the Grievance Arbitrator (in a manner consistent with his determination of a Grievance subject to the provisions of this Section) shall determine the amount of the deposited funds to be payable to the player, the Team, or the NBA, and any interest earned on such deposit shall be allocated to the parties in proportion thereto._


Hey, if I'm wrong about Rasheed being able to play, I'll be the first to admit it. But I see nothing in the CBA saying that it's possible.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

i can't believe how the league and the whole world keeps picking on you guys...its just not fair.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

*this blows*

Well this sure puts a damper on things now doesn't it?

I was gettin' all psyched half way through this thread when people were talking about appeals but now it looks like we're just straight up screwed.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Good information, So Cal Blazer Fan. Thanks.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

Boy, 7 games is alot at once, particularly considering the quality of the refs the last few years. I'm not sure they deserve that much protecting!

The original report I heard from Dwight Jaynes on the radio, was that Sheed and a refree (not Javie, one of the other two) were arguing. At some point, Sheed took off his coat and moved towards the ref, but bystanders moved in between them. No actual fighting took place, but there was the threat of a fight.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> i can't believe how the league and the whole world keeps picking on you guys...its just not fair.


Didn't you call us a bunch of names and promise to leave our board and never come back just two weeks ago? Classy. Good to see you're still on paTroll...

I'll be very interested to see what the Blazers organizatin's reaction to this ruling is. I suspect that we'll have more facts revealed about the incident pre-game. I have no idea whether this is appropriate or not.

STOMP


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> Didn't you call us a bunch of names and promise to leave our board and never come back just two weeks ago? Classy. Good to see you're still on paTroll...
> ...



us? names?


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I call *BS!* :upset: 

How can Rasheed Wallace get a seven game suspension for cursing at a ref when....


Chris Mills threatens the entire team and the police have to be called in and he gets 3 games?
Superman almost takes of Brad Miller's head and gets less games!
Charles Barkley jumps the press row and chases the ref into the stands and gets three games!!!

_ The above I didn't bother looking up, but correct me if I am wrong. I wrote this in the heat of anger!!!_ :upset: 

I am going to the game tonight and I am so upset. I hope that the rest of the team takes it out on Minnesota tonight. The NBA has crossed the line today! I hope that they get a bloody nose from this suspension. Just when you thought that it was safe to go back to the games!!!!

As Red Foreman would say to the person that dealt the suspension.....

You Dumbass! :curse:


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> us? names?


Obviously, there's not enough action on the Nets board.

It's all good, Tommy-boy. It's all good


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> 
> 
> Obviously, there's not enough action on the Nets board.
> ...


Too Much clean living i guess. Zach Randolph will fill in nicely...Heck Ruben can even play some PF in a pinch. I remember him doing a great job against Webber while he was in Seattle. 4-3 in his absence is possible.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Holy moley!

I just got home and read the headlines about Sheed......

that is a pretty stiff penalty considering he supposedly only cursed at him.

Makes the Golden State incident seem rather interesting with Chris Childs. He went out of his way with thugs and blocjed our bus and only got a few games. Now Sheed for cursing got 7....

Does not seem right...


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> Holy moley!
> 
> I just got home and read the headlines about Sheed......
> ...



i think there is some selective punishment going on. He's only had 5 t's this year. I also think the league saw it as an excalating problem. There are too many off court incidents going on. If the Mills thing never happened the punishment would have been 1 maybe 2 games.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

The interview on KFXX had Stu Jackson stating that they do take into account past behavior in suspensions. I don't think Sheeds having the Tech record helped, but they should be looking at current behavior also. He is doing much better. Also they talked to DA this morning and he was shocked and said " we really are blackballed by the league". I did miss a small part of the interview, but I thought they said why should I improve my behavior after this? I thought when one of the host stated that it must have been stated by Wallace, but they may have been stating that in Sheed defense. If anyone heard the whole interview and Rookie show, please correct me if I'm wrong. 
The threat seems to be the big deal to them, but it seems unjust if you don't state what he said or did. 

Can we finally get constant officating? How about a rule on what is a Tech! How about treat all players the same? No star, rookie or vet criteria. Everyone the same.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I know Sheed has some ups and so many downs, but this is getting rediculous. Refs have it out on him night in and night out because of his reputation. This year has been a wonderful exception and Sheed has been keeping himself in check. I don't know why the refs and the NBA can't get off the man's back. I mean 7 games? Shaq makes racial jokes about Asians and gets a slap on the hand from the media, but Sheed gets 7 games for a non-physical threat? This is bogus.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

There had better be more details coming damn soon. I don't remember any non-drug suspension longer than this, and there have been some near-criminal incidents the last few years that met with less punishment. The league can't be completely insane, so I must assume that the details of what happened will come to light and show this as being more than just a verbal pissing match.

Hearing of this and watching tonight's game, I'm having a sinking feeling. In all the years I've watched the NBA, only last year's game 6 between the Kings and Lakers have I ever felt that the NBA was biased for or against a team. It was too obvious for me to deny. Tonight I'm starting to feel that about the Blazers.

Maybe it's time for me to get sized for one of the jackets with sleeves that tie in the back, but the 7 games and then the startling series of non-calls. I missed the 1st half, so maybe they were making up for something. I guess we'll see more on Monday.


----------



## 4-For-Snapper (Jan 1, 2003)

When I heard, I couldn't believe it! Seven games? And for what? For something that _allegedly_ took place? What a joke. I've _never_ liked Donaghy or Javie, but now I'm not sure I like any of the NBA refs. This just proves the point that 'Sheed (bad tempered as he is) absolutely *will not* get a fair shake from the NBA refs. I hope that all of you are as outraged as I am over this.


----------



## 777 (Dec 14, 2002)

7 days, thats like a trip to IL list, and for something that has not been proved yet?


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

So here is a question for everyone.

Does this mean that McInnis is going to the IR so that Boumtje Boumtje can give the Blazers more size with Rasheed serving his sentence? Portland was lacking size against Minnesota tonight. I am waiting to see if there is going to be movement on the IR.

My call is McInnis for Boumtje Boumtje.

Ideas or what do you think?


----------



## talman (Dec 31, 2002)

Just got home and heard about the suspension--absolutely unbelievable...I'm shocked. I sugest everyone call or write the NBA to protest this BS. Here's what I wrote:

I'm writing to express my disappointment with the decision by the NBA to suspend Rasheed Wallace for seven games. I believe that the suspension is wholly unreasonable and is unwarranted. The only thing the NBA has accomplished with this suspension is to further perpetuate the feeling that the NBA is out to get the Portland TrailBlazers.

Let's take a look at the history of NBA suspensions:

1) Chris Mills gets into a fight with Bonzi Wells that spills into the stands and into the parking lot after the game. The police are needed to remove Chris Mills from the scene and he is suspended three games.

2) Rick Fox gets into an oncourt fight with Doug Christie that spills into the tunnels leading to the locker room and is suspended for six games.

3) On December 19, 1996 Charles Barkley assaulted referee Jack Nies, poking him in the nose and drawing blood. He was given a 7,500.00 fine and suspended two games.

4) In April of 1996, Magic Johnson shoved an NBA official during a game and received a three game suspension.

I'd love to hear Stu Jackson explain the descrepancies between these historical suspensions and the one levied to Rasheed Wallace. Since when does verbal assault become more severe than physically assaulting someone??

As a fan I'm absolutely disgusted by this ruling. I'll continue to support my team, the Portland Trailblazers, but will no longer be attending games, purchasing merchandise, or supporting the NBA in any other manner.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

I like the way the Blazers worded their announcement. Makes it sound like they might disagree pretty strongly.

_January 18, 2003 

Blazers Forward Rasheed Wallace, has been suspended without pay for seven games by the NBA. 

NBA Senior Vice President of Basketball Operations, Stu Jackson, suspended Wallace for allegedly threatening a game official in a parking lot outside the Rose Garden. The purported incident occurred following the Blazers' victory over the Memphis Grizzlies on January 15. 

Jackson refused to elaborate on the incident, but did confirm there was no physical contact between Wallace and referee Tim Donaghy. _


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Just the NBA screwin the Blazers, what else is new?*

Just the NBA taking one of their many per year shots at screwin the Blazers. Nothing else is new here.


----------

