# Jefferson Should Be Suspended



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

When Williams and Kidd had their altercation, Jefferson stepped about 2 feet onto the court. What does that mean? The same thing that happened to the knicks bench against Miami. The NBA cannot let this slide, that is a blatant violation of the rules. John Starks mentioned this on Sportsdesk and they showed the video of him stepping onto the court.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

If that's what happened, then yes he should. Have you heard that he won't be already? You sound like there's no way that he will actually be suspended.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

I doubt he'll be suspended, that was barely an altercation. The most physical aspect of it, William's push, was ignored.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

Regardless of the altercation, Jefferson came OFF the bench, ONTO THE COURT. Thats exactly what players on the Knicks bench did against Miami, and they all were suspended 1 game.


----------



## NYCbballFan (Jun 8, 2003)

Interesting. I noted that too and I remember how hard the league came down on the Knicks. Lost them the series. 

Artest also ran onto the court. I wonder if the NBA will suspend two of its best young players.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Regardless of the altercation, Jefferson came OFF the bench, ONTO THE COURT. Thats exactly what players on the Knicks bench did against Miami, and they all were suspended 1 game.


When players are jumping up and down in celebration on the sideline, should they be suspended too? Even if they cross the line by a mere 6 inches? Honestly, I don't care. Did Jefferson throw a punch? No. Did he leave the bench? Yeah. Did he go to halfcourt like Patrick Ewing? No. 

My guess is something has to qualify as an ALTERCATION before a suspension can be given. Otherwise we'd see suspensions for those guys jumping up and down on the sideline who step over the line, no?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> My guess is something has to qualify as an ALTERCATION before a suspension can be given.


That's my point too. If the incedent IS ruled an "altercation" then RJ may be suspended.

But in the flow of the game it was NOT dealt with by the officials as an "altercation". If it were than Frank would have gotten and technical, and a possible suspension of his own.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

"I got suspended for being a few feet from our bench... I thought what the NBA did was wrong. They robbed me, robbed us of a great opportunity." 

whether its halfcourt, or 1 foot out, its school AGAINST THE RULES. Some guys on an NCAA team were suspended this year cause of this. And the NBA owes us anyway. After they suspended like half our team for this very same thing


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Penny, the argument isn't how far onto the court he was, it's whether he was on the court during an "altercation".


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

Did you not see Williams push kidd to the floor after Kidd was talking trash and stepping over him?


----------



## Charlie Brown (Oct 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PennyHardaway</b>!
> Did you not see Williams push kidd to the floor after Kidd was talking trash and stepping over him?


I think most people understand altercation to mean fight, which would have resulted in an ejection of some sort.

Since there was no fight, or altercation, or whatever you want to call it, there is no need to enforce the rule you are bringing up.

Same thing with the Pacers game today and Ron Artest.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Yes I saw it, but did the officials? If they did why wasn't Frank given to punishements that go with that action?

Something clearly happened, but I believe it needs to be deemed an official "altercation" for the "no one off the bench" rule to be relevant. You don't see guys suspended for cheering or stepping on the court to get around a coach or official on the way to the scorers bench, do you?


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PennyHardaway</b>!
> Did you not see Williams push kidd to the floor after Kidd was talking trash and stepping over him?


That's all it was -- Williams stood up, pushed Kidd, and that was that. Not much of an altercation in my opinion. I mean if RJ does get suspended then I wouldn't call ridiculous, but you're probably setting yourself up for a disappointment if you're expecting him to miss the next game.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

I disagree. The rule is to keep guys from getting involved. The was a physical play and RJ stepped on the floor toward the action. It is really cut and dried. The intent of the rule was violated. He should sit. It is HIS motivation that counts...not the guys on the floor. He came out to back up his teamster.


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

artest ran half way to half court and back durin jermaine oneal and brandon hunters fight and rj jus stepped out two feet. i doubt either of them get suspended.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

RJ's intent? He ran right back to the bench.

Knick players ran from the bench to get involved in the melee against Miami. That's why they were suspended. Ewing was suspended because he went to halfcourt, which in my eyes is practically inviting somebody to go after you. Suppose one of the Heat players had run up to Ewing. What then? Ewing went on the court with no intention of leaving. He may not have had any intention of joining in, but it's not like his presence helped the situation. In fact it would have incited more Knicks to get off the bench and possibly involved if they saw their leader get off the bench too.

Richard Jefferson stepped 2 feet over and went back. Knick fans will just look for any reason to suspend people for that rule. It's well known that Riley baited them into it, so kudos for him for manipulating a hot headed Knick team.

Remember that exhibition game where Fox and Christie started wailing on each other? Shaq got off the bench and didn't get suspended. Maybe, just maybe, the league is not enforcing that rule as harshly BECAUSE of what happened to the Knicks.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

SUSPEND JEFFERSON, it was an altercation J-kidd mauled frank williams and frank defender himself and rj ran past the line thinking to try and get into the brawl. i say suspend rj for one game!


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Posted by rashidi


> RJ's intent? He ran right back to the bench.


posted by alfa


> I disagree. The rule is to keep guys from getting involved. The was a physical play and RJ stepped on the floor toward the action


Alfa you are dead right,and rashidi unwittingly supplies the evidence..If RJ ran right back,that means he commited the violation of the rule.Running back does NOT let you off the hook.Intent is not in question....Willimas pushing Kidd to the floor,has all the makings of an altercation and a player can NOT step on to the floor.It just so happens the incident did not escalate and that is NO reason to excuse RJ..He clearly violated a rule,and there was an altercation,however breif and non violent..

Intent is not on trail Rashidi..RJ actions are,and clearly your statement that he ran back to the bench proves he committed the infraction..


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Well I was originally against the suspension because I hate this petty bullcrap. The Knicks were wronged by the rule and I see no reason to punish every other team in perpetuity for that error.

However, in remembering that it was Rod Thorn, as league henchman, who enforced the rule against us, I see it only fitting for HIM to be bit in the arse by the same anal enforcement of that same rule. If you live by the sword you die by the sword.

Then, after biting Rod back in the arse, I'd like to see all petty attachemnt to "that's the rule, a rule is a rule" thrown out for the betterment of the game.

Die Rod Thorn, die.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

man where are the real knick players at? kurt thomas just disappeared for a game and got outplayed by sweetney, and nobody even cared that the fat duck aka jason collins damn near murdered tim thomas?

with him out i see no way for us to even THINK about winning this series. and dear god lenny, bench shandon and start penny PLEASE! since his koala *** can't remember how to coach, i'm hoping IT a member of the bad boys will get on the knicks like he did when we barely beat the wizards...man all i can think about is how jason collins got timmy...somebody has got to send a message next game...

and what about our swiss cheese defense???? last i checked the dunk competition ended a few MONTHS ago!!! lenny was on tv talkin about limiting kidd's fastbreak etc, but thats all it was, just talk. a man that can't put his words into action is damned worthless...and that's exactly what lenny is...man i'm just mad as hell they didn't even show up yesterday...they better redeem themselves. yeah guys its cool that you're in the playoffs, now play like it, suckers.


----------



## Charlie Brown (Oct 22, 2002)

In case anyone missed it, the NBA said Jefferson will not be suspended.

They are still reviewing the tape of Ron Artest.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> He clearly violated a rule,and there was an altercation,however breif and non violent..


You are clearly wrong. Ask the NBA.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> You are clearly wrong. Ask the NBA.


And knowing Rashidi, if the NBA said that it was an altercation, someone would be saying that the NBA was wrong.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

Artest was suspended but Jefferson wasnt. They both did the same exact thing. Clearly they just did that cause of Rons history. This is a slap in the face to all knicks fans. How hypocritical of the nba to let this slide when the same happened to the knicks screwing us in the playoffs in 97. He and Artest both broke the rule, yet Ron is the only one facing punishment.

maybe Stern just hates the Knicks and since Jefferson did it against us he let it slide. Maybe he just hates New York. You know where Artest is from right?


----------



## ToddMacCulloch11 (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PennyHardaway</b>!
> Artest was suspended but Jefferson wasnt. They both did the same exact thing. Clearly they just did that cause of Rons history. This is a slap in the face to all knicks fans. How hypocritical of the nba to let this slide when the same happened to the knicks screwing us in the playoffs in 97. He and Artest both broke the rule, yet Ron is the only one facing punishment.
> 
> maybe Stern just hates the Knicks and since Jefferson did it against us he let it slide. Maybe he just hates New York. You know where Artest is from right?



If stern hates new york, then he is an idiot. New York is one of the biggest markets....if the team does well, then the sell more tickets and jerseys and other merchandise and then the NBA makes more money.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

what about the John starks rule with the timeouts while your in the air? and That other rule that was made after a knick hit a shot with .1 on the clock? every time we do something, they make sure it will never happen again. everytime they can put us down, they do it.


----------



## Charlie Brown (Oct 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PennyHardaway</b>!
> Artest was suspended but Jefferson wasnt.


That is inaccurate.

Artest ran onto the court, changed his mind, and ran back.

Jefferson jumped up to see what happened.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

LMAO. You fools think the NBA is against the Knicks? Larry Johnson. 4 point play. Hubert Davis. Hue Hollins. Nuff said.


----------



## ToddMacCulloch11 (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PennyHardaway</b>!
> what about the John starks rule with the timeouts while your in the air? and That other rule that was made after a knick hit a shot with .1 on the clock? every time we do something, they make sure it will never happen again. everytime they can put us down, they do it.


Then why didn't the NBA get the refs to make calls against them that would make them not win games so they didn't even make the playoffs? 

I highly highly highly doubt that the league is againt the knicks or the city of new york in any way


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PSUmtj112</b>!
> 
> 
> That is inaccurate.
> ...


There's really no difference, Jefferson was on the court and quickly sat down same way Artest did. If you expect the NBA to make unbiased, intelligent judgements, well then you'll be let down every single time. Bob Sura knows.


----------



## Charlie Brown (Oct 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jtx</b>!
> 
> 
> There's really no difference, Jefferson was on the court and quickly sat down same way Artest did.


I disagree. You can argue that Artest left the bench. You cannot do the same about Jefferson.


----------



## alphadog (Jan 2, 2004)

I don't like the way the NBA handled it. They have a portion of the ruke that says the players may wander from the "vicinity" of the bench. That is far too vague and open to subjective interpretation. Keep it simple. If you leave the bench and step onto the floor during ANY CONFRONTATION on the court, you ARE suspended. No questions...no exceptions..no room for subjectivity...fair for everyone.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>PSUmtj112</b>!
> 
> 
> I disagree. You can argue that Artest left the bench. You cannot do the same about Jefferson.


Jefferson got up *off the bench* and was on the court, doesn't matter how far, he was still on it. Stern must've gotten some good oral from Thorn...anyway I believe both of them need no punishment, this is the playoffs so let the players play.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Jefferson was on the court and quickly sat down same way Artest did.


Couldn't be further from the truth. Stop crying, 1997 is over and done with. And people say I live in the past?


----------



## schub (Jul 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jtx</b>!
> 
> Jefferson got up *off the bench* and was on the court, doesn't matter how far, he was still on it. Stern must've gotten some good oral from Thorn...anyway I believe both of them need no punishment, this is the playoffs so let the players play.



Jefferson never left the vicinity of the bench. Players and coaches get thar far onto the court all the time during the game. Artest clearly went much further.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Couldn't be further from the truth. Stop crying, 1997 is over and done with. And people say I live in the past?


What_the_hell? I'm talking about what happened this past Sunday, man you on a different page but my mind is in a different book.


----------



## Max Payne (Mar 2, 2004)

It's Rashidi dude...one of these days he'll come by and say that Ewing actually played for Portland or something all his life.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> It's Rashidi dude...one of these days he'll come by and say that Ewing actually played for Portland or something all his life.


One of these days, you might make a witty post.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Rashidi,how do you do it???


----------



## lastlaugh (Oct 30, 2003)

He left the bench. It doesn't matter how far onto the court he went he still stood up and left the bench.

They highlighted it on ESPN the other night and it clearly showed him on the floor.

If rules are rules then Jefferson not being suspended just proves this suspension against Artest was due to name only.






> Originally posted by <b>schub</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson never left the vicinity of the bench. Players and coaches get thar far onto the court all the time during the game. Artest clearly went much further.


----------



## Charlie Brown (Oct 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lastlaugh</b>!
> He left the bench. It doesn't matter how far onto the court he went he still stood up and left the bench.


It does matter how far away from the bench a player moves. If not, both players would have been suspended. 

Even though the rule is vague, it states if a player should not leave the vicinity of the bench. Notice that it does NOT say that a player should not step onto the court. If the league wanted the rule to be anyone who stepped onto the court, it would have said as much.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> If rules are rules then Jefferson not being suspended just proves this suspension against Artest was due to name only.


Stop blaming the league because Patrick Ewing thought that half court counts as the vicinity of the bench.


----------



## lastlaugh (Oct 30, 2003)

I am not a Knicks fan and I don't stick up for New York but this is not fair.
It says leave the vicinity, well onto the floor is leaving the vicinity.
Artest left and came directly back while Jefferson stood there for awhile. 

It is ridiculous that Nets fans still insist their was a difference when according to the rules there was not.
Both of them left the bench and Artest got suspended because he was Artest. It didn't hurt that Danny Ainge kept calling the
office.


----------



## Charlie Brown (Oct 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lastlaugh</b>!
> 
> It says leave the vicinity, *well onto the floor is leaving the vicinity.*


That is how you define leaving the vicinity. It is clear the league define's it differently.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

OMFG. Wow. Just wow. Time to call dictionary.com.

*VICINITY*

*The state of being near in space or relationship;* proximity: two restaurants in close vicinity. 
*A nearby, surrounding, or adjoining region*; a neighborhood. 
An approximate degree or amount: houses priced in the vicinity of $200,000. 

Jefferson did not leave the vicinity of the bench. If you think he did, then it's your fault for not being able to understand the english language.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lastlaugh</b>!
> It is ridiculous that Nets fans still insist their was a difference when according to the rules there was not.
> Both of them left the bench and Artest got suspended because he was Artest. It didn't hurt that Danny Ainge kept calling the
> office.


You realize Rashidi is a Knicks fan right?

-Petey


----------



## Perennial All Star (Aug 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Petey</b>!
> 
> 
> You realize Rashidi is a Knicks fan right?
> ...


Since when? :yes:


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> You realize Rashidi is a Knicks fan right?


yeah,rashidi is as much a Knick fan as Shandon Anderson is a starter in the NBA....

Petey,are we talking about Rashidi the guy who hasnt said one positive thin about the knicks since Layden was fired???

If Rashidi says there shouldnt be a suspension,that means ther DEFINETLY should have been one..Hes as ANTI knick as there is


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Petey</b>!
> 
> 
> You realize Rashidi is a Knicks fan right?
> ...


Rashidi says he is but almost all regulars on the Knicks board will say differently. Rashidi is the one who seems to always go out of his way to say things that are contrary to the popular opinion on the Knicks board. If you see the majority of us on the Knicks board say something, 100% that Rashidi is arguing with us. If that is Rashidi's definition of a fan, then let him believe that he is a fan. I'm going to dictionary.com too. 

Fan, n. 
An ardent devotee; an enthusiast.
[Short for fanatic.]

Well, Rashidi doesn't seem to be a ardent devotee of the knicks because he always criticizes the Knicks now. He doesn't seem like an enthuiast of the knicks with his always-negative posts. And he certainly does not seem to be a fanatic with his constant bashing of the Knicks. 

But hey, that is the dictionary definition. It might not apply to the sport of basketball, right? If so, then the dictionary.com definition of vicinity might not apply in basketball, right? It might, but we can't say for sure, since "The state of being near in space or relationship" and "A nearby, surrounding, or adjoining region" are both vague enough. If you want to argue, NY is in the vicinity of LA because it is "near in space." The distance between NY and LA is so small compared to the distance between Earth and the sun. My point is that "near" "close" and everything being mentioned are all very vague terms and we need to clearify the rules. 

It is obviuos that the rules are not clear enough to define where "vicinity" is. I think the NBA needs to clear this up soon, or we will be having these arguements again and again.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

Some fans are harder on their team then others. I love the Yankees, but I talk more about their faults then the good. 

-Petey


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Some fans are harder on their team then others. I love the Yankees, but I talk more about their faults then the good.


The good is boring. Which is why I'm not a Yankee fan.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> The good is boring. Which is why I'm not a Yankee fan.


For their payroll they have no excuse in losing, but they do. They still have plenty of faults. And lets not forget the 80's where we couldn't win a WS but had the best overall record in the 80's.

-Petey


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Dictionary.com's definition of ARDENT

ARDENT

Expressing or characterized by warmth of feeling; *passionate:* an ardent lover. 
Displaying or characterized by strong enthusiasm or *devotion*; fervent: “an impassioned age, so ardent and serious in its pursuit of art”
*Burning; fiery. *
Glowing; shining: ardent eyes.

Dictionary.com's definition of DEVOTEE

One who is ardently devoted to something; an enthusiast or advocate: a devotee of sports.
An ardent or fanatical adherent of a religion. 

Based on dictionary.com, Rashidi is a fan. You may not like his style, and Rashidi may not like any of you, but Rashidi doesn't complaiin, so neither should any of you. It looks like everybody including will have to come to grips with this and move on with their lives.

Has anybody stopped to consider that maybe all the bashing I got for supporting Layden has turned me away from the Knicks and their hypocritical fans? Unlikely.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Petey</b>!
> Some fans are harder on their team then others. I love the Yankees, but I talk more about their faults then the good.
> 
> -Petey


Very true, but Petey, do you see many fans that NEVER say anything positive about "their" team? You may be hard on the Yankees but you still say good things about them now and then.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> Dictionary.com's definition of ARDENT
> 
> ARDENT
> ...



I fail to see why posting all of these definitions show that you are a fan Rashidi. Maybe you can elaborate a bit? Come on, convince us with the dictionary.com definition.

How would you use "Expressing or characterized by warmth of feeling" to describe yourself? Not many of us here see your "obvious warmth" for the team. "Passionate"? Sure you are passionate when you discuss, but that doesn't mean that you are passionate for the team. If someone passionately argues that Bush is an idiot who is making all of the wrong moves, does that make the person a Bush fan? Words have different meanings, don't take them at face value. 

"Displaying or characterized by strong enthusiasm or *devotion*; fervent:" Question to regular posters here, who thinks Rashidi displays strong enthusiasm for the Knicks? When was the last time Rashidi was enthusiastic about the Knicks? When was the last time he said something positive about the Knicks? Devotion? How has Rashidi showed his devotion for the Knicks? By bashing them in his every posts? Strange was of defining devotion to me. 

Come on Rashidi, prove me wrong and show us how you are a fan. I respect the fact that you can have your own ideas and no one can force you to change them, but I don't respect that fact that everything that comes out of your mouth is a negative comment about the Knicks and you still claim to be a Knicks fan. Yes Knicks fans can criticize their team but IMO, and I think most people will agree with me, fans will at least have SOMETHING positive to say about their team in 4 months. I'm not even exagerating about the fact that Rashidi hasn't said anything positive aobut the Knicks in the past 4 months. Prove me wrong Rashidi. 

Yes, Rashidi, I have considered the fact that the bashing you get here could have turned you away from the Knicks. But by saying that, are you admitting that you are no longer a "fan" and "supporter" of the Knicks since you could have turned away from them already? And while I admit that some of the comments you have recieved are unwarrented for and not your fault, I still think that many of the comments you receive you deserve, because most of them talk about your negativity on the team and you have done nothing to prove those comments wrong.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Has anybody stopped to consider that maybe all the bashing I got for supporting Layden has turned me away from the Knicks and their hypocritical fans? Unlikely.


maybe its because you have never once said you are wrong......

what did you expect when you are sarcastic and dead wrong????

you supported layden,he had a .350 record and got canned.....

i supported Wilkens,am NOT happy with his coaching and will give him one training camp....after that,hes gone and i wont miss him..

its obvious you are still pisssed off..your posts are antagonistic,thats why everyone bashes you,not because og who you support..I dont agree with Alfa alot,but never get on him


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

I'm a Knick fan.

Just not a Knick fan fan.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> I'm a Knick fan.
> 
> Just not a Knick fan fan.



Rashidi, for someone who brings up stats so often (good ones i admit) why don't you just prove to us you are a Knicks fan? If you would just stop being so negative about the Knicks most of us could accept you. You don't have to be a "Knicks fan fan" but show us that you are a Knicks fan. I notice that you always avoid some of the questions we raise, why? Just show us that you are a Knicks fan by supporting the team. You don't have to like the management, but what is done is done, so live with it.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> You don't have to like the management, but what is done is done, so live with it.


Why? Didn't people do the same during the Layden era? These Knicks are not significantly any better, though they do have fewer options.


----------



## dcrono3 (Jan 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Why? Didn't people do the same during the Layden era? These Knicks are not significantly any better, though they do have fewer options.


I would prefer for you to answer the questions above instead of trying to answer my questions with more questions. It might not have been your intention, but it seems like you always avoid our questions, especially the important ones which tend to disprove your theories, because you are either "too wimpy" to answer them or you just can't.


----------

