# NBA suspends Amare and Diaw



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

What a frickin' joke this league is. Amare and Diaw both get one game suspensions, Horry gets a two-gamer.

Duncan and Bowen get no penalties whatsoever.

Absolute joke. Why don't they just save everyone the time and just grant the Spurs the series victory now?

****ing horrible.

Edit: Here's the link: http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns//articles/0515sunssuspension-ON.html

-Pop


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

:thumbdown: :no: :banghead: :whatever:


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

That sound you hear is the Spurs fans cheering.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Not surprised. 

If they made an exception for Amare, then every player suspended for leaving the bench but not getting invovled would be using that as an example of being treated unfairly.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

What a joke. Trade Horry for Stoudamire. LOL, bring on the goons... NBA will be seeing more of that now.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> If the Spurs win the series, Horry is MVP.


Stu Jackson would run a close second in my mind. He absolutely botched this punishment. There's no explanation for the way they handled this. If they want to say, "Regardless of the situation, the NBA is consistent with how they hand out penalties," that's fine. But give the same suspension to Duncan and Bowen for leaving the bench during the Jones/Elson altercation.

Having a league office that plays favorites is just disgusting. The NBA had a chance to prove to everyone that they don't give special treatment to anyone, and instead they chose to plant a giant smooch squarely on San Antonio's rear.

-Pop


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I think the Phoenix fans need to storm the court before the game in protest. **** the NBA. Tell me you can't follow the spirit of the rule in a situation like that. I hope Phoenix boos the hell out of the start of that next game. They are probably too classy... but I think the NBA's justice in this case is injustice and it pisses me off.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

I don’t see how this gives the Spurs anything. It gives them a great advantage for one game and relative disadvantage for another. Sounds like the recipe for a 7 game series.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

That big market San Antonio team with their bright lights and huge stars always getting a free pass from the NBA.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Sorry, but I think blaming Horry is pretty lame.

Diaw and Amare know the rules. There isn't any grey area here - there hasn't been and there won't be precisely because they don't want it to be a subjective matter. Just because Horry does something doesn't mean they have to rush the court - that's their own individual decision.

As to the whole Duncan thing, I didn't see it, so I can't comment.

But I think the league, if it were going to show favoritism, would pick the Suns. They get higher ratings with the run and gun offense.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

yakbladder said:


> Sorry, but I think blaming Horry is pretty lame.
> 
> Diaw and Amare know the rules. There isn't any grey area here - there hasn't been and there won't be precisely because they don't want it to be a subjective matter. Just because Horry does something doesn't mean they have to rush the court - that's their own individual decision.
> 
> ...



QFTSNF or something like that . . . basically I agree.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Well I hope the Suns win despite being hosed.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

2k said:


> I don’t see how this gives the Spurs anything. It gives them a great advantage for one game and relative disadvantage for another. Sounds like the recipe for a 7 game series.


Now, the Suns - who would have been favorites to win their home game tomorrow - are going to be significant underdogs playing without two key players. That give the Spurs a great shot at stealing back home court advantage and having a close-out game at home in Game 6. Had the NBA done the right thing and weighed the circumstances against the crime OR been consistent and suspended the Spurs players who ran onto the floor during the Jones/Elson altercation, the Suns wouldn't be left holding a plastic spoon going into a knife fight.

-Pop


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Absolutely outrageous. Duncan should have been suspended right alongside Amare and Diaw. He did the exact same damn thing!

Make no mistake about it: The NBA is protecting Duncan and the Spurs with this ruling.

Lesson: "Star power" rules the NBA. Thank GOD for Brandon Roy. The NBA will get a lot of mileage out of him over the course of his career and we, by proxy, will reap the benefits.

PBF


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

So is Amare Stoudemire not a star? He was first team All-NBA after all. He is in more NBA commercials than Tim Duncan.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Consequences be damned - if I'm coaching the Suns tomorrow night, I wait until Duncan heads to the bench for his first breather and then send in a goon to take out Parker, Ginobili, or Bowen. And have the house cameras trained on the Spurs bench when it happens to see just how many Spurs come up off that bench. After all, that's exactly what the Spurs just did.

I'm thinking the gloves are off for Game 5 tomorrow night as far as the Suns are concerned.

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

HKF said:


> So is Amare Stoudemire not a star? He was first team All-NBA after all. He is in more NBA commercials than Tim Duncan.


Yeah he's a star, but he's not even close to Duncan in star power when you put them next to each other. Duncan has been the NBA's poster-boy for years. Not even close.

PBF


----------



## BlazingHeat (Jul 16, 2004)

...I would think the NBA would want the Suns in the championships over the Spurs since they are much more fun to watch and I don't get this star power argument Amare isn't a star?


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

BlazingHeat said:


> ...I would think the NBA would want the Suns in the championships over the Spurs since they are much more fun to watch and I don't get this star power argument Amare isn't a star?


See my last response. Not compared to Duncan he's not. Not even close.

PBF


----------



## Hype #9 (Feb 14, 2004)

Duncan and Bowen should have been suspended as well. 

Bowen caught being dirty again... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26SPv_50DCE


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

So now Amare isn't a star? Okay. First team All-NBA players aren't stars all of a sudden.


----------



## Hype #9 (Feb 14, 2004)

Here's more dirty plays by Bruce Bowen...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drPQkEsM8uM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI5pE2-bXkE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLgHeeOZJFI


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

HKF said:


> So is Amare Stoudemire not a star? He was first team All-NBA after all. He is in more NBA commercials than Tim Duncan.



And Nash has won the league MVP the previous two years. 

It seems like if Stern wanted to favor anyone, for the good of the NBA, it would be the Suns.

I haven't seen the Duncan incident, but I think Stern did what he had to do with Horry, Amare and Diaw.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Why would the league favor the team from the smaller market that everyone says is boring over the most hyped-up team in the league? If Stern had a magic wand, every team would play like the Suns and the Spurs would move to Las Vegas or Beijing. 

Conspiracy theory denied.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

Disgraceful. I like the NBA less now.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

If anyone is interested:

http://www.nba.com/webAction?action.../email_us/email_form_041027.jsp&surveyId=1152


----------



## Ron Burgundy (Jun 29, 2006)

stockfire said:


> Disgraceful. I like the NBA less now.


I couldn't agree more. This is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Takes the NBA back 10-15 years to the Bad Boy Pistons/Knicks/Miami Heat 68-65 low scoring hack fests where the game within the game is who provokes who and who gets ejected/suspended. The "don't leave the bench" rule has it's place, but it's like anything else - you can't just have a blanket law/rule and say there are no exceptions. Each case needs to be judged on its own merits. 99/100 this rule makes sense. This time it doesn't. You could point to our legal system and find exceptions where laws are broken and people aren't prosecuted because they had a legitamate reason for breaking the law in a given circumstance. It's just a shame to see this happen, and it leaves a bad taste. Your 2-time MVP gets slammed to the floor, what are you going to do? It's not like Amare threw a haymaker at anybody. Good rule, but like most rules, there are exceptions where the crime doesn't fit the punishment. I dissagree with those who say that by not suspending Amare/BD that you're sending a message that this rule is selective. If an armed guy breaks into your house and you kill him - is that murder? If you don't get the needle for that does it mean our laws against murder aren't "consistent"? I'm ranting, I know. I'm just pissed.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Stop comparing the NBA rules to federal, state and local laws. It's not the same.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Ron Burgundy said:


> I couldn't agree more. This is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Takes the NBA back 10-15 years to the Bad Boy Pistons/Knicks/Miami Heat 68-65 low scoring hack fests where the game within the game is who provokes who and who gets ejected/suspended. The "don't leave the bench" rule has it's place, but it's like anything else - you can't just have a blanket law/rule and say there are no exceptions. Each case needs to be judged on its own merits. 99/100 this rule makes sense. This time it doesn't. You could point to our legal system and find exceptions where laws are broken and people aren't prosecuted because they had a legitamate reason for breaking the law in a given circumstance. It's just a shame to see this happen, and it leaves a bad taste. Your 2-time MVP gets slammed to the floor, what are you going to do? It's not like Amare threw a haymaker at anybody. Good rule, but like most rules, there are exceptions where the crime doesn't fit the punishment. I dissagree with those who say that by not suspending Amare/BD that you're sending a message that this rule is selective. If an armed guy breaks into your house and you kill him - is that murder? If you don't get the needle for that does it mean our laws against murder aren't "consistent"? I'm ranting, I know. I'm just pissed.


Actually, depending upon where you live, the law does state that very exception regarding intruders and the perceived threat to life. So, yes, the exception is CLEARLY stated in the law.

If the NBA didn't suspend them, then thousands of fans would decry how the Suns got away with something that no other team (or players on other teams) would have.

Anybody have the video link of Duncan leaving the floor?


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Go away, HKF. We all could tell from your first post that you like the decision by the league. Enough. You're in the minority and you're not going to change anyone else's mind. Move on, your just repeating yourself over and over. Tired.

My opinion...the NBA made a huge mistake taking this "no tolerance" stance on this rule long ago. It's just not smart. Every situation is different and an organization needs to allow themselves the ability to treat them differently.

How is the NBA better for having these two guys suspended for doing...well...nothing? Stern's got to be kicking himself for this screw up.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I don't have to go away if I don't want to. As a matter of fact, I am going to subscribe to this thread now.


----------



## smeedemann (Jul 16, 2003)

I just do not understand how the NBA is consistent in their decision process. Earlier in the game Duncan and Bowen were on the floor after an altercation and nothing was done. It was not even shown on any major media outlets, seems rather odd to me. Decisions like this will bring an end to NBA, people lose interest. If the NBA wants to have predetermined outcomes they should just admit it like wrestling and people can watch for entertainment value alone. Here is some more information to add to the fire:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...yhoo&type=lgns

http://bumpshack.com/2007/05/15/tim-duncan-left-the-bench-last-night-as-well/


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

i don't understand what all the fuss is. clearly, the suspensions to horry, diaw, and stoudemire were the right call. there was an altercation when horry elbowed nash to the floor and bell reacted by getting into horry's face. diaw and then stoudemire quickly rushed to the court. stoudemire was on the bench. he was NOT on about to check in when he rushed to the court.

as for the duncan's incident: there was no incident. elson made a nice two-handed dunk. duncan and alberto stood up and celebrated the dunk and took a couple steps onto the court. alberto was undercut, but there was no altercation.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

BuckW4GM said:


> i don't understand what all the fuss is. clearly, the suspensions to horry, diaw, and stoudemire were the right call. there was an altercation when horry elbowed nash to the floor and bell reacted by getting into horry's face. diaw and then stoudemire quickly rushed to the court. stoudemire was on the bench. he was NOT on about to check in when he rushed to the court.
> 
> as for the duncan's incident: there was no incident. elson made a nice two-handed dunk. duncan and alberto stood up and celebrated the dunk and took a couple steps onto the court. alberto was undercut, but there was no altercation.



Please. If you choose to perceive it that way of course you can say that. Just as I could say that I saw two players jump up to check on a fallen player before and isolated from the interaction of Horry/Bell I could also say that I see an inadvertant foot to the head of a Spurs player that looked like it could have escalated into a physical confrontation and Duncan wandered on court in an agressive manner and had to be restrained, by a teammate.

Anyone who thinks that Amare and Diaw got what they deserved and that the same can't be applied to Duncan/Bowen is speaking in direct opposition to the "apply the letter of the law" mantra that they are preaching. 

Personally, I don't think Duncan/Bowen should be suspended for coming onto the court because I don't believe Amare/Diaw should be suspended. 

HOWEVER, if you are going to apply blanket rules without expection, you better damn well do it to everyone.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

smeedemann said:


> If the NBA wants to have predetermined outcomes they should just admit it like wrestling and people can watch for entertainment value alone. http://bumpshack.com/2007/05/15/tim-...night-as-well/


Y'know, I think that might not detract much as from the game as we think and would probably add a lot of entertainment value. We are already quite a ways down that path. Go for it Stern! 

barfo


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

stockfire said:


> Please. If you choose to perceive it that way of course you can say that. Just as I could say that I saw two players jump up to check on a fallen player before and isolated from the interaction of Horry/Bell I could also say that I see an inadvertant foot to the head of a Spurs player that looked like it could have escalated into a physical confrontation and Duncan wandered on court in an agressive manner and had to be restrained, by a teammate.


i guess you and i just saw the video clips differently. on the horry/nash's incident, it was clear to me that stoudemire (not sure about diaw) rushed to the court in an aggressive manner. he had to be restrained by his teammates. on the elson's dunk in which he was undercut, it wasn't an incident at all. none of the players on the court was even jawing at one another. as for duncan being on the court: he and alberto stood up and took a couple steps onto the court for celebrating the dunk. duncan was on the court before elson was undercut. i don't understand how that can be interpreted as duncan's aggressively rushed onto the court in defense of a teammate. then i think it was bowen who stood up to tell duncan to sit.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Buck... I took a couple of steps at my TV ready to kicks its *** when I saw Nash get clipped... it's freaking human nature... I didn't kick its ***... I regained sense and let it be... but for Christ sakes... is it so wrong to react to such a blatent piece of crap play like that? You can say... yeah... yeah... it is wrong to attack another man... but if another man slapped my wife or one of my kids... I could give a rip... there is going to be a confrontation! To me... what Horry did was one of those things that crossed a line... and I don't have a problem at all with a few players stepping toward him. I am sick of the ****ing cheap shot flopping whiners ruining the NBA.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Paxil said:


> Buck... I took a couple of steps at my TV ready to kicks its *** when I saw Nash get clipped... it's freaking human nature... I didn't kick its ***... I regained sense and let it be... but for Christ sakes... is it so wrong to react to such a blatent piece of crap play like that? You can say... yeah... yeah... it is wrong to attack another man... but if another man slapped my wife or one of my kids... I could give a rip... there is going to be a confrontation! To me... what Horry did was one of those things that crossed a line... and I don't have a problem at all with a few players stepping toward him. I am sick of the ****ing cheap shot flopping whiners ruining the NBA.


i'm not arguing against what you're saying at all. not taking nba rules into account, i don't think either stoudemire or diaw should be suspended. if i was a suns player, i would probably have done the same. i'm just saying the nba has its rule (whether i like it or not), and they were correct to suspend stoudemire and diaw.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Not surprised.
> 
> If they made an exception for Amare, then every player suspended for leaving the bench but not getting invovled would be using that as an example of being treated unfairly.


Uh...Except that duncan and bowen left the bench earlier in the game. Yet, no suspension for them.

And Bowen gets to kicks Steve Nash in the nards any time he wants without repercussions. 

the NBA screwed up today.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Fork said:


> Uh...Except that duncan and bowen left the bench earlier in the game. Yet, no suspension for them.


was this when elson dunk and was undercut? if it was, then i don't think duncan and bowen should be suspended. 



> And Bowen gets to kicks Steve Nash in the nards any time he wants without repercussions.


i know it's not much, but they did changed that call to a flagrant 1. but i agree with those who thinks that bowen is dirty and should at the least be fined for what he did to nash and stoudemire.


----------



## smeedemann (Jul 16, 2003)

> was this when elson dunk and was undercut? if it was, then i don't think duncan and bowen should be suspended.


They walked out on the court farther than Amare did in protest to the play. When are players allowed to walk on the court and when are they punished for it? The NBA needs to be consistent with the suspensions in this matter. Of course this play was never replayed on TNT or ESPN so the NBA doesn't have to address it.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> was this when elson dunk and was undercut? if it was, then i don't think duncan and bowen should be suspended.
> 
> 
> i know it's not much, but they did changed that call to a flagrant 1. but i agree with those who thinks that bowen is dirty and should at the least be fined for what he did to nash and stoudemire.


Like smeedeman said, they came onto the court. hey, the letter of the law is the letter of the law, right?

personally, I think Horry is the only one who should be suspended. but it Amare and diaw are suspended for taking a couple steps onto the court, then duncan and bowen should be too.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

smeedemann said:


> They walked out on the court farther than Amare did in protest to the play. When are players allowed to walk on the court and when are they punished for it?


players step onto the court all the time in celebrating nice plays and to protest calls. i don't think there's been a player suspended for that. that was what duncan did. he stepped onto the court celebrating the dunk by elson, and just kind of stood there looking on (to protest possibly) as elson was being undercut. bowen stepped onto the court to get duncan to sit. how can you possibly justify suspending bowen for that?



> The NBA needs to be consistent with the suspensions in this matter.


i think they are.



> Of course this play was never replayed on TNT or ESPN so the NBA doesn't have to address it.


i think they don't show it because there is nothing to show. it was a nice dunk by elson.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Agreed. Never before has the NBA been more "selective" in their choice of replays.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Fork said:


> Like smeedeman said, they came onto the court. hey, the letter of the law is the letter of the law, right?


yes, they did stepped onto the court. was it in reacting to an altercation on the court? i don't think it was, as there was no altercation after elson was undercut. if the rule is any player that's on the bench stepping on the court for whatever reason will be suspended, then yes duncan and bowen should be suspended. but i don't think there's such a rule. it only applies to on the court altercation, as far as i know.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

I don't understand how Duncan "celebrating a good dunk" warrants a team mate pushing him back to the bench. 

Besides, if he was merely celebrating, Bowen has no reason to make sure Timmy isn't on the floor, because he's not in danger of punishment, right? If there was no incident or chance of an incident then Bowen has no reason, none whatsoever, to forcibly push Duncan towards his seat.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

stockfire said:


> I don't understand how Duncan "celebrating a good dunk" warrants a team mate pushing him back to the bench.


i don't know what bowen was thinking, but perhaps he didn't want duncan to get T-up or possibly get into trouble by keep standing there. i'm sure players on the bench aren't suppose to occupy the court for any meaningful time.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

It just seems to me that people are willing to find a way to rationalize Duncan's reactions but rather quick to judge Amare's.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

stockfire said:


> It just seems to me that people are willing to find a way to rationalize Duncan's reactions but rather quick to judge Amare's.


i wouldn't be one of them, as i have no love for the whinning spurs. but it's clear to me duncan did not break any rule.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

BuckW4GM said:


> yes, they did stepped onto the court. was it in reacting to an altercation on the court? i don't think it was, as there was no altercation after elson was undercut. if the rule is any player that's on the bench stepping on the court for whatever reason will be suspended, then yes duncan and bowen should be suspended. but i don't think there's such a rule. it only applies to on the court altercation, as far as i know.


This is absolutely true. The league has these rules in place to try to avoid anything like another Malice at the Palace incident. Yes it is strict, but the players know the rules: if there is a fight, stay in your seat. Amare and Diaw stupidly forgot those rules. Duncan got up after a dunk, not at the start of the fight, and Bowen smartly ushered him back to his seat when he saw Elson get undercut specifically to avoid even the perception that Duncan was up to get involved. It's not selective application of the rules, it's precise application.

It sucks that this kind of thing can decide a series, but the blame rests on Amare and Diaw because they should have known better.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

People are acting like this is a series breaker for the Suns. I think the other way, I think this is going to light a spark under their *** and they're going to play better ball.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

"Letter of the law" makes it hard to argue with the league's decision.

But....

I saw Horry body slam a player half his size. It was a clear provocation. By all team instincts someone would retaliate. I don't know if Horry planned this, but the net result of his provocation is that his team got rewarded. 

I'd rather see some sort of compromise: suspend Stoudamire and Diaw for the first game of next season, for example. That way policy is upheld but does not potentially decide an NBA champion. And incidentally it keeps attention focused on the "marquee match-up" of the playoffs and not on the last 18 seconds and their aftermath.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

crandc said:


> I'd rather see some sort of compromise: suspend Stoudamire and Diaw for the first game of next season, for example. That way policy is upheld but does not potentially decide an NBA champion. And incidentally it keeps attention focused on the "marquee match-up" of the playoffs and not on the last 18 seconds and their aftermath.



The problem I see with that is these playoffs get very physical. If I'm on the bench and see an altercation on the floor, even if I just see guys jawing at each other and I'm the enforcer on the team, I leave the bench and get right in the middle of the action knowing the consequence is missing a regular season game next season.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Here are my thoughts:

First and foremost, I think a two game suspension for Horry is a joke considering the magnitude of impact that his stupid actions could have had on Nash's health had he hit the table or landed differently. Also, the fact that it was a totally senseless action well after the game was decided makes the infractions worse, IMO. I'd have suspended him for at least 3-4 games. That might not match what's been done in the regular season for similar actions, but these are the playoffs and the impact of something like this is of a far greater magnitude.

Second, I think the league needs to revisit their policy on suspensions for coming off of the bench in the playoffs. No argument that Stoudemire and Diaw violated the letter of the law and should get a one game suspension. However, the playoffs are different than the regular season in that teams are playing each other in a series and stand to benefit if they can incite opposing players to come off of the bench. If this policy stands, I can see teams in a close series thinking about having some bench thug do something egregious in front of the opposing team's bench just in the hopes of drawing players off of the bench to gain an advantage in the next game. I'd like to see it changed so that, as long as a player coming off of the bench doesn't make contact with the opposing team's players, their suspension is served at the beginning of the next season. If they make contact, given that these guys are drilled on the consequences of coming off the bench, then they deserve what they get in the way of immediate suspensions.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> Consequences be damned - if I'm coaching the Suns tomorrow night, I wait until Duncan heads to the bench for his first breather and then send in a goon to take out Parker, Ginobili, or Bowen. And have the house cameras trained on the Spurs bench when it happens to see just how many Spurs come up off that bench. After all, that's exactly what the Spurs just did.
> 
> I'm thinking the gloves are off for Game 5 tomorrow night as far as the Suns are concerned.
> 
> PBF


I think a goon may actually make a lot of sense from a purely competitive standpoint. It's immoral, but the NBA isn't about morality, it's about winning. 

Parker is often on the court without Duncan because the Spurs always want one of their two best offensive weapons out there. Parker is small, incredibly quick, and a team leader. He's a perfect candidate for a clothesline or a Horry-esque cheap shot body check. 

The Suns will have a lot of bench players in there anyway because of the suspensions. When Parker does one of his trademark drives in the lane for a tear drop, I think you have James Jones or Pat Burke take a whack at him. 

With a little luck, Duncan or some other starter overreacts. Or at least Tony Parker thinks twice about taking it inside again. 

It sucks that it's come to this, but the refs have allowed it to become a brawl. As Sean Connery once said, they come at you with a knife, you come at them with a gun.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

What I don't get is that all of the league defenders are saying "letter of the law", "rules are rules", "no exceptions", "black and white" but the rigidness of applying these rulings, that are never allowed to be subjective, are based in the COMPLETE arbitrary and case-by-case definition of what an "altercation" is.

It seems to me that we have the ability to define "altercation" as we see fit. I don't understand how anyone can apply a black and white rule to a situation which we've clearly proclaimed as innately gray.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

stockfire said:


> It seems to me that we have the ability to define "altercation" as we see fit. I don't understand how anyone can apply a black and white rule to a situation which we've clearly proclaimed as innately gray.


Horry, Bell and Nash had to be restrained by the officials - thus altercation.

No one had to be restrained in the other incident - thus no altercation.

I am not a fan of the Spurs and their whining - but given the existing rules in the NBA - you can not really fault them for the actions.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

Of course I can fault them for their actions, they are AWFUL actions.

So, is that a league mandate? That nothing is an altercation until an offical restrains you?


"But just because a rule was enforced with a lack of common sense in the past does not mean it must be enforced unreasonably in perpetuity." - Chris Sheridan


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

I'll go ahead and answer my own question

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12.html?nav=ArticleList


> c. During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $35,000. The suspensions will commence prior to the start of their next game.


This is the only section of the rules that mentioned Altercations, notice that it doesn't define what an Altercation is.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

In fact, there is an entire section of the rules for "DEFINITIONS"

Wouldn't we want to DEFINE something like Altercation so that when we blindly suspend players for it, we have criteria?!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

stockfire said:


> I'll go ahead and answer my own question
> 
> http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12.html?nav=ArticleList
> 
> ...



It also doesn't define immediate vicinty . . . I'm missing your point.


I think it was clear to most players and coaches before the game that the conduct Amare did goes right to what that rule is about and dictates a suspension.

Suns tried to counter with the incident involving Duncan which I aslo think is clear that that is not the type of conduct that warrants a suspension.

If you don't like the rule, I get that. But I thought given the rule, the right decision was made . . . and that it was a pretty easy decision.

Here is quote from Stu Jackson:

Unless the rule is changed, the NBA has no choice, Jackson said. 

"We don't want to be in a position where we're determining the outcome of a series," Jackson said during a conference call. "However, we always have to be in the position of enforcing the rule, and this rule is clear. It's a bright line. Historically, if you break it you get suspended regardless of what the circumstances are."


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I like e_blazer's suggestions/comments. Agree totally.

Problem with having a thug take out Tony Parker is it punishes the wrong guy. Tony Parker did not take out Steve Nash. Yes, his team benefits. But I'm really uncomfortable with the thought of potentially injuring someone based on some sort of collective guilt.

Punish the guilty.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I wouldn't mind seeing a rule change, but I think the answer is to educate the players more. Amare is young and probably just learned a lesson he won't soon forget. (I noticed in last night's game, Jackson gave Fisher a cheap shot and no one came off the Jazz bench and onto the floor)

I don't buy that this rule will lead to chaos on the floor. The idea of using a thug to take out a star and induce a star player to get off the bench, I don't think will work. If team A wants to use a thug to take a cheap shot on a star, couldn't team B use a thug to come off the bench and go after team A's thug . . . heck let's put some gloves on the thugs so they can throw them off and brawl hockey style.

Amare blew it, it sucks for the suns and I understand why they would be upset . . . but it is the spurs who are suppose to be the whinners, right?


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

The league has opened a can of worms with this decision. Personally, I hope Phoenix sends in a guy to slam Tony Parker into the scorer's table or to undercut Duncan on a dunk attempt, just because it would put the league in a difficult situation.

Supposedly, the rules are in place to deter teams from starting or escalating violence in games. In my view, they just rewarded a team for violent play. If I'm D'Antoni, what could it hurt to have Pat Burke or Marcus Banks or Jalen Rose go in there and try to take out one of the Spurs players, and preferably on the same side of the court that San Antonio's bench is on.

By the way, David Stern was scheduled to be at tonight's game in Phoenix, but he conveniently changed his plans. Hmmm ... and why is that David? Aren't you confident that the league made the right decision? Aren't you MAN enough to take criticism, if you truly believe your league did this the right way?

-Pop


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> It also doesn't define immediate vicinty . . . I'm missing your point.
> 
> 
> I think it was clear to most players and coaches before the game that the conduct Amare did goes right to what that rule is about and dictates a suspension.
> ...



You most definitely are missing my point, I guess. We don't define Altercation and as you pointed out we don't define Vicinity. So how we know what an altercation or vicinity is? We let it be subjective to the officials. 

How can the league beat their chest with the mantra of "he violated the rules, must follow the letter of the law" when the entire basis of the law is in a subjective interpretation of what an altercation is?

As it stands we have subjective criteria to make an objective punishment, which is lunacy. A player is suspended one game for being on the court during an altercation, but we can define altercation any way we choose? If we are going to allow the criteria to be subjective, we must, MUST allow the punishment to be subjective. Anything else is fascist.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> By the way, David Stern was scheduled to be at tonight's game in Phoenix, but he conveniently changed his plans. Hmmm ... and why is that David? Aren't you confident that the league made the right decision? Aren't you MAN enough to take criticism, if you truly believe your league did this the right way?


Probably because regardless of whether he made the right decision or not (and I think he did), there are legions of violent fans who will probably want to cause him bodily harm. You know, the same people who want tit-for-tat and some player on the Spurs injured in retaliation. Why risk your life because of some drunken goons?

Look, I'm fine with the rule being re-visited after the season. But it's the rule now. Players from any team should realize that if they leave the bench during an altercation - and please don't tell me you can't tell what really constitutes an altercation - they are going to get suspended. Why get stressed out over everything because Amare acted stupidly? Geezum, it's not even a Blazer player.

Secondly, the league has a history of escalating punishments to get its point across. Send a retaliatory bump the Spurs way and you might see some dramatic punishments coming down on the Suns. (Which will, of course, simply "validate" the theory by some that the league prefers the Spurs to win.) The one area I somewhat agree with is that Horry should have had a longer suspension, but he didn't go into the stands, throw a punch, or do anything else.

The easiest way to defuse the situation is to have the refs call a tight game from here on out. I think you'll see that in an effort to A) reassert league control and B) prevent any escalating feud.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

stockfire said:


> As it stands we have subjective criteria to make an objective punishment, which is lunacy. A player is suspended one game for being on the court during an altercation, but we can define altercation any way we choose? If we are going to allow the criteria to be subjective, we must, MUST allow the punishment to be subjective. Anything else is fascist.


I think this is a clear case of not being able to define pornography - but knowing it is when seeing it...

If federal judges can not help you define every concept of human existence - you sometime have to resort to common sense within the confines of the rules that are in place.

You can argue that there was an altercation when Duncan stepped on the court - but given that the two players did not exchange blows and no one had to restrain them - I find it a rather weak argument.

Given that I am not conversant in the fine points of the law - I will stop arguing this at this point...


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

stockfire said:


> If we are going to allow the criteria to be subjective, we must, MUST allow the punishment to be subjective. Anything else is fascist.


That's a nice speech - surprising coming from a Cards fan - but nice. :biggrin:

fascism- "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"

Couldn't your definition be attributed as even more fascist? I mean, when you have subjective opinions over everything, you in essence provide dictatorial control by Stu Jackson as to what punishment will be merited, for whom, how long, and based upon a definition provided solely by him at his whim.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

KMD,

Can you imagine the Spurs reaction if this had happened to them? I have yet to hear anyone but the Suns owner complain. Who's whining?

Popovich has always thought the world was out to get him and his players follow suit. They are whiners. It's what they do and how they play the game. It's probably the reason the aren't very popular for all of their successes. 

The NBA's decisions long ago set them up for failure this time but I'm sure they appreciate your support.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

TP3 said:


> KMD,
> 
> Can you imagine the Spurs reaction if this had happened to them? I have yet to hear anyone but the Suns owner complain. Who's whining?
> 
> ...


I don't anybody would disagree that the Spurs are a bunch of whiny cry-babies. I'm particularly upset that Manu hasn't been given a box of tissues and told to go sit on the bench for the rest of his career. However, their history really doesn't have bearing on the issue at hand.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Just a response to KissMyD calling the Suns whiners.

By the way, if the refs call it tight it will hurt the Suns even more...for doing nothing wrong. Beautiful. This series didn't need this nonsense.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> That's a nice speech - surprising coming from a Cards fan - but nice. :biggrin:
> 
> fascism- "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"
> 
> Couldn't your definition be attributed as even more fascist? I mean, when you have subjective opinions over everything, you in essence provide dictatorial control by Stu Jackson as to what punishment will be merited, for whom, how long, and based upon a definition provided solely by him at his whim.


Good point. We don't want everything based on Stu or Stern's whims. But if we are allowing them to write the rules, and then enforce them aren't we doing the same thing anyway?

My point was not that the rules should all be subjective to one individual, but rather that we allow ourselves to operate in an environment that isn't strangeled by the textbook definition of rules. And if we CHOOSE to be so cut and dry, they have a duty to at least be thorough and define the situations that we are willing to punish players for being a part of.


and didn't you know that Cards fans are amont the most informed and well versed?


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> Players from any team should realize that if they leave the bench during an altercation - and please don't tell me you can't tell what really constitutes an altercation - they are going to get suspended.



Sure, I can give my opinion... let me type that word again, OPINION, on what I THINK an altercation is. So can you. So can Stu. So can My Mom. I doubt they would be the same. That is the problem. If you don't define it, you are going to get varied results and all of a sudden you giving some players the boot and letting others stay and we are doing it under the guise of 'correctness not fairness.'


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

The other key problem with the rule and enforcing it:

Are players required to be psychic?

An on-court "Altercation" occurs. Players on the bench leave it.

At what point in time is an "Altercation" deemed to have been started? What is that "bright line" that Stu mentioned?

At what point in time should it become clear to the participants that an "Altercation" is actually occurring?

Once that point in time has been reached, how long are players given to 1) realize this and 2) return to their bench?

If you do not allow the above to be factored in, then what you are doing is punishing players/teams for something they have little control over. They could exercise control by never leaving the bench. But, Ducan and Bowen didn't follow that advice.

Did Duncan not get suspended because he broke no rule? Or, did Duncan not get suspended because he was LUCKY that an altercation occurring AFTER he had already left the bench didn't happen, as it could easily have?

Is the league saying: "it's ok to leave the bench, but if you happen to leave the bench around the time an altercation occurs, bam"


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Leaving it to their opinion allows them to CONTROL situations (maybe outcomes) and then spin their explanations to the public. Classic Stern.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

stockfire said:


> and didn't you know that Cards fans are amont the most informed and well versed?


Yeah. St. Louis is the epicenter of intellect and wisdom.

Oh man, you're a SPUDS fan too? Yeeeeeuck. Of course, once again you finish below the mighty Arsenal.:biggrin:

-Pop


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

Yeah yeah. 5th place again. with 20 extra matches played and three solid cup runs, I think it's an improvement over 5th place with no cup runs. Either way, Spurs are breaking into top 4 next year, maybe at the expense of the Gooners.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Is the league saying: "it's ok to leave the bench, but if you happen to leave the bench around the time an altercation occurs, bam"


I believe, in fact, that IS what they're saying and is stated in the rules.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> The other key problem with the rule and enforcing it:
> 
> Are players required to be psychic?
> 
> ...


They did allow the above to be factored in. They wouldn't expect Duncan to be psychic, so if he stands up after a nice dunk, which is followed by an altercation, they wouldn't suspend him if he sat back down, which he did. The league also certainly noticed during review that no altercation in fact did occur anyway after the Elson dunk, so that's two specific reasons Duncan and Bowen didn't get fined.

In the Suns case, they got up after the altercation started. It's not hard to pinpoint the start of an altercation. Since it happened after, the Suns players didn't need to be psychic to avoid it, nor do they need any time buffer to avoid it. If they had just happened to be already standing up, going to the scorers table like some claimed re Amare, or waiving a towel after a nice dunk, then the league wouldn't have suspended them.

I think the line is pretty bright, unless you choose to squint at it. Had an altercation not started when Amare and Diaw decided to get off the bench? I don't think any definition of "altercation", or "started" or "is" lets those guys fall outside of the rule.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

And the rules say if you walk with the ball without dribbling it is traveling... is it always called Stu? How about those offensive goaltending slams... is that ALWAYS called. No... RARELY. Palming the ball? Black and white? Nope... no rhyme or reason really to when they call it... except obviously that stars seem to get more leeway. The blank and white argument the league is using is bull****. I see it like this... with obvious exaggeration... this incident is like murdering your wife and then collecting on her life insurance policy in 8 years when you get out of jail! Horry shouldn't be allowed the benefits (suspension of Stoudamire and Diaw) for his cheap shot actions. That only encourages that type of play! The whole rule is a rule argument is weak in my opinion.

Also, do you believe that in a similar incident in reverse the league would suspend Duncan? I don't think so... we saw what happened when Duncan was tossed for laughing (ref suspended) and then Davis and Jackson get tossed for CLAPPING. (not a word from the league). I believe the same situation with Duncan involved and the league would have made an exception. Easy. They can use the same argument too.... 'we don't want to affect the outcome of the games'.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

TP3 said:


> Just a response to KissMyD calling the Suns whiners.
> 
> By the way, if the refs call it tight it will hurt the Suns even more...for doing nothing wrong. Beautiful. This series didn't need this nonsense.



Hey, you're right . . . my bad. If I think this out (there is a scary thought), the suns really haven't whinned about the NBA decision.

I was reading a bunch of posts calling the Spurs whinners (which on the court they are) and then complaining (whinning) about the league's decision. So I thought I would point out the irony only to have you reveal that I'm clueless. 

I'm really not a "the league can do no wrong" kind of fan. I just think in this case, given the rules, it was an easy call with unfortunate results. It's these kinds of situations that often lead to rule changes . . . if the suns lose this series in 6, it will be interesting to see if they change the rule (I like e's idea about maybe fining players for leaving the bench and suspend if they touch anyone . . . although I can just see the arguments about who initiated the contact and grand ideas of if a a star leaves the bench go physically lock up with them)

But bottom line is you're right, there is nothing I can point to to show the suns are whinners . . . I've been known to talk out of my darius from time to time. :biggrin:


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

To all those who like to cuss and allege some kind of favoritism:

Do you really think the league is going to favor the Spurs to beat the Suns? What motive would they have to do this?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> They did allow the above to be factored in. They wouldn't expect Duncan to be psychic, so if he stands up after a nice dunk, which is followed by an altercation, they wouldn't suspend him if he sat back down, which he did. The league also certainly noticed during review that no altercation in fact did occur anyway after the Elson dunk, so that's two specific reasons Duncan and Bowen didn't get fined.
> 
> In the Suns case, they got up after the altercation started. It's not hard to pinpoint the start of an altercation. Since it happened after, the Suns players didn't need to be psychic to avoid it, nor do they need any time buffer to avoid it. If they had just happened to be already standing up, going to the scorers table like some claimed re Amare, or waiving a towel after a nice dunk, then the league wouldn't have suspended them.
> 
> I think the line is pretty bright, unless you choose to squint at it. Had an altercation not started when Amare and Diaw decided to get off the bench? I don't think any definition of "altercation", or "started" or "is" lets those guys fall outside of the rule.


So you are saying that even though Amare leapt off the bench right after Nash got clocked by Horry, that an altercation, by definition was already in process? How was Amare to know at that moment it was an "altercation"? What had transpired (in the past) that defined it as a known altercation? And remember, the hard foul itself, is not part of the altercation. It is just a hard foul.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

Word. See my comments about no official definition of an altercation. How you can you possibly give someone such a big punishment for something that is such a gray area that the league won't even attempt to define it?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> So you are saying that even though Amare leapt off the bench right after Nash got clocked by Horry, that an altercation, by definition was already in process? How was Amare to know at that moment it was an "altercation"? What had transpired (in the past) that defined it as a known altercation? And remember, the hard foul itself, is not part of the altercation. It is just a hard foul.


Well, that's a good point. I think every NBA player knows that you aren't supposed to leave the bench when a hard foul occurs though. Even if it's not spelled out well, it's still clear.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

stockfire said:


> Word. See my comments about no official definition of an altercation. How you can you possibly give someone such a big punishment for something that is such a gray area that the league won't even attempt to define it?


That's how all law and language is. You keep asking for more definition, but there's no such thing as perfectly defined. Language is ambiguous, but the rules are written in an attempt to make it as understandable and clear as possible. In this case, the meaning is clear. You'll notice the Suns aren't saying they didn't understand the rule, because they know they did. Even if you can come up with a circumstance that tests the specific definition of terms in the rule, this isn't one of them, so all the complaints about ambiguity are irrelevant to this case.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Masbee said:


> So you are saying that even though Amare leapt off the bench right after Nash got clocked by Horry, that an altercation, by definition was already in process? How was Amare to know at that moment it was an "altercation"? What had transpired (in the past) that defined it as a known altercation? And remember, the hard foul itself, is not part of the altercation. It is just a hard foul.


Don't leave the bench and you don't have to worry about whether there's an altercation or a circus.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> To all those who like to cuss and allege some kind of favoritism:
> 
> Do you really think the league is going to favor the Spurs to beat the Suns? What motive would they have to do this?


Trying to explain why the league does anything is like trying to explain why the telephone seems to always ring when you turn on the vacuum cleaner; or why Germans love David Hasselhoff. There is no explanation.

-Pop


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

If language is ambiguous and no such thing as perfectly defined, then how can you have universally applied laws and rules? the ambiguity of the langauge of the rules should be reflected in the enforcement of said rule.

Of course the Sun aren't saying they didn't understand the rule. They are still a professional basketball team and there is always an element of politicking to their official releases. Official Word from the Suns organization probably different from the sentiment of many of the people there. The fact that they haven't made a bigger issue out of it speaks more to the idea of public image than it does to their acceptance of a bogus application of a rule.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> Don't leave the bench and you don't have to worry about whether there's an altercation or a circus.


Yes. Exactly. That is the point.

Duncan left the bench too. That an altercation didn't happen during that time may have been dumb luck for him. This is what we are going over.

Is the rule, as written and enforced for those who never touch anybody, yet leave the bench, potentially a "dumb luck" rule?

A Phoenix fan said it might be clever if one of their scrubs watched to see if Duncan/Parker/Ginobili left the bench during normal play, and took the opportunity to pick a fight while they were already up. Now what does the league do with the Spurs stars? Certainly if the Spurs stars take the bait and move toward the fight they are suspended.

But, do they let them off the hook if they run back to the bench right away? If they just stand there out on the court?


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Yes. Exactly. That is the point.
> 
> Duncan left the bench too. That an altercation didn't happen during that time may have been dumb luck for him. This is what we are going over.
> 
> ...



Nobody is arguing that the rule shouldn't be reviewed or even changed. What we (or at least I) am discussing is whether, given the rule in place now, the suspensions were appropriate. As was reported, Amare and Diaw were 20-25 feet out onto the court. If for some reason the Spurs decide to go that far out during regular game play, then yes, I'd suggest the Suns take advantage of the opportunity.

Whether it was dumb luck or not, the suspensions were called according to the rules. And again I state, rather than submit yourself to dumb luck, as Duncan did, or not you're best bet for the remainder of the playoffs is to stay in your freaking seat. If you can't figure that out as a player I have no sympathy for you.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

stockfire said:


> If language is ambiguous and no such thing as perfectly defined, then how can you have universally applied laws and rules? the ambiguity of the langauge of the rules should be reflected in the enforcement of said rule.
> 
> Of course the Sun aren't saying they didn't understand the rule. They are still a professional basketball team and there is always an element of politicking to their official releases. Official Word from the Suns organization probably different from the sentiment of many of the people there. The fact that they haven't made a bigger issue out of it speaks more to the idea of public image than it does to their acceptance of a bogus application of a rule.


Or, it just means they know they screwed up and have no argument. I think that's why, because every player in the league knows you aren't supposed to run out on the court and get involved in anything that might even become a fight. If you aren't in the game, you are not allowed to get involved, period. I think there are possible circumstances where ambiguous language might leave people whether a rule is applicable, but in this case it's a clear violation of both the letter and spirit of the rule.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

Or they know they got screwed and know that the current NBA would never go back on a ruling, despite it being an indulgence on a rule implemented by an over zealous commisioner desperately trying to get the league to "straighten up and fly right" so he can keep his job?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

yakbladder said:


> Nobody is arguing that the rule shouldn't be reviewed or even changed. What we (or at least I) am discussing is whether, given the rule in place now, the suspensions were appropriate. As was reported, Amare and Diaw were 20-25 feet out onto the court. If for some reason the Spurs decide to go that far out during regular game play, then yes, I'd suggest the Suns take advantage of the opportunity.
> 
> Whether it was dumb luck or not, the suspensions were called according to the rules. And again I state, rather than submit yourself to dumb luck, as Duncan did, or not you're best bet for the remainder of the playoffs is to stay in your freaking seat. If you can't figure that out as a player I have no sympathy for you.


Duncan got up after a dunk, and when the undercut occured and it appeared an altercation might even take place, Bowen ushered him back to his seat.

Amare got up after a flagrant foul, which could easily turn into an altercation, and when an altercation did break out he continued to walk towards it.

For all this talk about ambiguity in the rules, we all know what the rules are for. The league doesn't want bench clearing fights, and they prohibit coming off the bench during a fight because they know that the more guys that come up and get in each other's faces the more likely a major brawl will break out. If Amare had turned around and sat back down, or even just went over to Nash instead of taking his towel off and squaring his shoulders and walking towards the altercation, then he might have a case, but that just didn't happen.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

If the league doesn't want fights then punish fights, but don't punish someone for being in the promiximity of something that may or may not turn into a fight.

It's pre-emptive punishment and it's a terrible idea. Punish people before they do the thing that you don't want them to do?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

stockfire said:


> Or they know they got screwed and know that the current NBA would never go back on a ruling, despite it being an indulgence on a rule implemented by an over zealous commisioner desperately trying to get the league to "straighten up and fly right" so he can keep his job?


Do you really think the Suns believe they didn't violate the rule? Watch the replay, and notice the Suns assistant coaches tackling and dragging Amare back to the bench. He came off the bench and walked toward the fight while it was taking place. It's a perfectly clear violation of the rule.

And what the heck are you talking about, indulgence? Stern is desperate? He's been commissioner of the NBA forever. You bet that Stern wants the league to straighten up and fly right, if that means not ever having what happened in Auburn Hills happen again. That is his job. Whatever point you think that makes, it doesn't change the fact that Amare got off the bench and walked towards an altercation.

edit: here's the replay, in case anyone wants to see it. Amare is doing exactly what the rules are there to prevent people from doing. I can't see Diaw, but I presume he did the same. If Phoenix had refrained from retaliating, they would have had two free throws and the ball on top of their 3 point lead with under a minute left, which virtually seals the game for them, and San Antonio would be the team without a player for the next two games. Instead Bell decided to retaliate, giving SA a FT to keep the game close, and Amare and Diaw got their dumb butts suspended.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=31NwAn-0Px0&mode=related&search=


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

stockfire said:


> If the league doesn't want fights then punish fights, but don't punish someone for being in the promiximity of something that may or may not turn into a fight.
> 
> It's pre-emptive punishment and it's a terrible idea. Punish people before they do the thing that you don't want them to do?


It's not pre-emptive, in any way. Pre-emptive punishments occur before the act. Getting off the bench during a fight is the at itself. The NBA punishes it because they know that if more guys get involved in an altercation, it has the potential to escalate into a much larger altercation. They aren't just punishing fighting, they are punishing people for creating the risk of escalation. It's pretty logical, like when the state punishes someone for drunk driving even if they don't get in an accident.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

crandc said:


> I like e_blazer's suggestions/comments. Agree totally.
> 
> Problem with having a thug take out Tony Parker is it punishes the wrong guy. Tony Parker did not take out Steve Nash. Yes, his team benefits. But I'm really uncomfortable with the thought of potentially injuring someone based on some sort of collective guilt.
> 
> Punish the guilty.



Maybe, but maybe the whole Spurs team is guilty. I see a team that from top to bottom, with the exception of a few players, plays dirty. Bruce Bowen plays dirty. Manu Ginobili plays dirty, and has taken flopping to a whole new level (I can't believe nba refs still fall for it actually). Robert Horry it is obvious now plays dirty. Tim Duncan never committed a foul in his life if you look at him after a call. Oberto hammers people all the time. He gets called a lot, but only half as much as he should, and he has gone to the Vlade Divacs flopping school as well. Their guys know every trick in the book, and use them constantly to grab, hold, trip, kick, body slam and mow their way through the NBA. 

I would not blame the Suns at all if they put their best 5 guys on the bench, and then sent everybody else on their team over to start a fight, and then paid the fines, and said "How do you like it now?"


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I agree Hasoos. The most useful skill in the NBA is faking. (And yeah... there was some theatrics involved with Nash's fall... he fell... then kinda fell a little more with some flairing that he forgot to do originally)


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> It's not pre-emptive, in any way. Pre-emptive punishments occur before the act. Getting off the bench during a fight is the at itself. The NBA punishes it because they know that if more guys get involved in an altercation, it has the potential to escalate into a much larger altercation. They aren't just punishing fighting, they are punishing people for creating the risk of escalation. It's pretty logical, like when the state punishes someone for drunk driving even if they don't get in an accident.


It's completely pre-emptive. They AREN'T fighting. You have a 1.7 second reaction (that involved nothing more than walking) to a violent play worth of ejection and all of a suddent you might as well be fighting?

If an NBA Fight = Drunk Driving Wreck (as per your analogy) then Walking onto the court is more akin to Going into a bar. The act of going to the Bar didn't cause you to drink and drive and wreck, it was a series of bad decisions, poor judgement, and alcohol. 

If they want to punish people for c reating the risk of escalation, punish Robert Horry for body checking Steve Nash at the end of the game when the outcome was decided. Punish Bruce Bowen for taking so many cheap shots on players in the league that he is bound to cause a fight. But if you think that an innate reaction that involved no violent actions (whether it is verbal or physical) is creating the risk of escalation, you are sorely misguided.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

SodaPopinski said:


> Now, the Suns - who would have been favorites to win their home game tomorrow - are going to be significant underdogs playing without two key players. That give the Spurs a great shot at stealing back home court advantage and having a close-out game at home in Game 6. Had the NBA done the right thing and weighed the circumstances against the crime OR been consistent and suspended the Spurs players who ran onto the floor during the Jones/Elson altercation, the Suns wouldn't be left holding a plastic spoon going into a knife fight.
> 
> -Pop


I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I believe in interpreting rules by the spirit not the letter. In Washington laws are interpreted to the letter. If the post office delivers a phone book with one rogue page of child porn to your address you are a felon. The crime is possession. It does not matter how you got it. Likewise you can run over any J-walker without recourse. That’s what you get when you interpret laws and rules by words instead of ideas. I have no problem with league deciding that Amare deserved suspension and Duncan didn’t. The rule was not put in place for what Duncan did.

Also this is not a death sentence for the Suns. They have a better team. They should be able to win the series even with the suspensions.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

The clip shows the same thing to me that I saw when I was watching the game.

Notice in the first clip that no bench players are even in the shot. A wide half court shot and you can't see Amare and Diaw, do you really believe that the 6-18 inches they occupied on the court for half a second was instigating a fight? Every other angle shows them coming towards Nash about the time it would take you to realize a player got knock down really hard. In fact, if you are going to claim there was an incident it was when Bell and Horry traded forearm shivers, which was after the Pheonix bench was corralled onto the sidelines. When Amare and Diaw come onto the court (and only because there was a line of coaches standing between Nash and the end of the bench -- seems they were trying to get around the coaches to check on Nash) Robert Horry was walking away from Nash. At that point Horry and Bell had not encountered each other so no "altercation" had occured.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

stockfire said:


> It's completely pre-emptive. They AREN'T fighting. You have a 1.7 second reaction (that involved nothing more than walking) to a violent play worth of ejection and all of a suddent you might as well be fighting?
> 
> If an NBA Fight = Drunk Driving Wreck (as per your analogy) then Walking onto the court is more akin to Going into a bar. The act of going to the Bar didn't cause you to drink and drive and wreck, it was a series of bad decisions, poor judgement, and alcohol.
> 
> If they want to punish people for c reating the risk of escalation, punish Robert Horry for body checking Steve Nash at the end of the game when the outcome was decided. Punish Bruce Bowen for taking so many cheap shots on players in the league that he is bound to cause a fight. But if you think that an innate reaction that involved no violent actions (whether it is verbal or physical) is creating the risk of escalation, you are sorely misguided.


You want to view players leaving the bench and walking towards a fight as not creating a risk of escalating the fight. That's your choice, but the league disagrees. They place a high priority on avoiding major fights, so they don't want to take the risk that bench clearing jawing matches might escalate into bench clearing fights. Amare and Diaw knew the rule like everyone else, and they broke it. Why should they expect not to get punished?

And FYI, Horry is getting punished with a 2-game suspension. If Amare and Diaw weren't so dumb, the Spurs would be the only team missing a rotation player. You can argue Bowen should have been punished for his supposed cheap shots, and the league certainly did review them, but just decided they didn't qualify for an upgrade to flagrant or for suspension. Why does that even matter? Does Bowen's action change the fact that Amare and Diaw broke a clear rule? No.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

stockfire said:


> The clip shows the same thing to me that I saw when I was watching the game.
> 
> Notice in the first clip that no bench players are even in the shot. A wide half court shot and you can't see Amare and Diaw, do you really believe that the 6-18 inches they occupied on the court for half a second was instigating a fight? Every other angle shows them coming towards Nash about the time it would take you to realize a player got knock down really hard. In fact, if you are going to claim there was an incident it was when Bell and Horry traded forearm shivers, which was after the Pheonix bench was corralled onto the sidelines. When Amare and Diaw come onto the court (and only because there was a line of coaches standing between Nash and the end of the bench -- seems they were trying to get around the coaches to check on Nash) Robert Horry was walking away from Nash. At that point Horry and Bell had not encountered each other so no "altercation" had occured.


Amare was walking past Nash. To say he was just going to check on him is overly generous. He got off the bench and walked straight towards the altercation. He was facing it with his head and shoulders and going straight at it, and not towards Nash. The altercation wasn't when Bell and Horry traded blows, it was when all the players started facing up with each other, and Amare chose to go towards that instead of staying back, which is why he has no case. I didn't see Diaw when it started, but you can see him in the frame closer to the action than Amare, which is why he is out too.

I don't think their actions created a significant increase in danger, just like I know I can drive a few blocks if I've had a few beers, but the rule is rigid and set with a low threshold so that people who push the envelope don't create any danger. That doesn't excuse them from punishment. I wouldn't even bother going to court and try to argue that a 0.10 BAC isn't so bad, because like the NBA's rules, the drunk driving laws are clear.

You seem to want to make every assumption in the Suns favor. Amare wasn't walking towards the altercation, but rather just around the coaches to get to Nash? He wasn't even looking at Nash. The altercation didn't start until Bell and Horry traded blows? There was already a pile of guys getting in each other's faces well before that, which is the definition of altercation (remember how important you think definitions are?). The rules are unclear? Everyone knows the rules, and the coaches knew them well enough to draft Amare and Diaw back to the bench to try to avoid punishment. None of these is a valid excuse.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Well, that's a good point. I think every NBA player knows that you aren't supposed to leave the bench when a hard foul occurs though. Even if it's not spelled out well, it's still clear.


Didn't Dunacn leave the bench after a hard foul on Elson earlier in the game?


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Schilly said:


> Didn't Dunacn leave the bench after a hard foul on Elson earlier in the game?


no, he didn't. as i already pointed out many times in this thread, duncan stood up and took a couple of steps onto the court to CELEBRATE a nice dunk by elson. elson was then undercut by jones as he landed. duncan was still on the court looking on when bowen stood up and get him to sit. there wasn't an altercation when elson was undercut. i don't think the refs even called a foul on that play. all players went on to play without even jawing at one another. i still don't get why there are so many who keep bringing this up as some kind of "incident."


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

BuckW4GM said:


> no, he didn't. as i already pointed out many times in this thread, duncan stood up and took a couple of steps onto the court to CELEBRATE a nice dunk by elson. elson was then undercut by jones as he landed. duncan was still on the court looking on when bowen stood up and get him to sit. there wasn't an altercation when elson was undercut. i don't think the refs even called a foul on that play. all players went on to play without even jawing at one another. i still don't get why there are so many who keep bringing this up as some kind of "incident."


+1


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Great column on this stupid rule:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070516&sportCat=nba


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

e_blazer1 said:


> Great column on this stupid rule:
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070516&sportCat=nba


I'm willing to bet the league doesn't change the rule. They would prefer to continue avoiding bench-clearing brawls as much as possible, and by comparison they don't care about a player's right to jump off the bench and take a few steps towards an altercation.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

If the league wants to avoid bench-clearing brawls in the playoffs, then they need to modify the rule the way I stated earlier so that the league has the discretion to delay the suspensions until the following season if there's no actual physical contact. As it is, the rule provides an incentive for teams to thug things up in the hopes of drawing opposing players off of the bench, and that, IMO, increases the likelihood of violence.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> Yeah. St. Louis is the epicenter of intellect and wisdom.
> 
> Oh man, you're a SPUDS fan too? Yeeeeeuck. Of course, once again you finish below the mighty Arsenal.:biggrin:
> 
> -Pop


Whats with all the hate on Cardinals fans?


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

BuckW4GM said:


> no, he didn't. as i already pointed out many times in this thread, duncan stood up and took a couple of steps onto the court to CELEBRATE a nice dunk by elson. elson was then undercut by jones as he landed. duncan was still on the court looking on when bowen stood up and get him to sit. there wasn't an altercation when elson was undercut. i don't think the refs even called a foul on that play. all players went on to play without even jawing at one another. i still don't get why there are so many who keep bringing this up as some kind of "incident."


People keep bringing it up because the folks defending the suspensions keep claiming that the NBA was just enforcing the "letter of the law", and that there is no room in the rule for discretion. 

Elson gets hammered + Duncan comes on court = no penalty.

Nash gets hammered + Amare comes on court = suspension.

Some of us can smell the bull****, even if you can't.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> Great column on this stupid rule:
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070516&sportCat=nba



:clap2: 

McCallum has a similar article up on SI.com.

I wonder how many folks here get the true irony of this situation? I went to college with Stu Jackson. He lost his scholarship over smoking pot. If anyone should understand the concept of "overkill", or understand that the punishment needs to fit the crime, it is Jackson. 

Jackson is a bright guy - but he has zero principles. His record as NBA VP is an embarassment.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> People keep bringing it up because the folks defending the suspensions keep claiming that the NBA was just enforcing the "letter of the law", and that there is no room in the rule for discretion.
> 
> Elson gets hammered + Duncan comes on court = no penalty.
> 
> ...


No offense, OMG, but you just seemed to respond without even reading the original post you responded to. There was no altercation in the first incident. Everyone went back down the court, everything was fine.

But I'm guessing that most of us will just have to agree to disagree on this one...


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> If the league wants to avoid bench-clearing brawls in the playoffs, then they need to modify the rule the way I stated earlier so that the league has the discretion to delay the suspensions until the following season if there's no actual physical contact. As it is, the rule provides an incentive for teams to thug things up in the hopes of drawing opposing players off of the bench, and that, IMO, increases the likelihood of violence.


Bingo!

This rule has nothing to do with protecting either the players or the integrity of the game. It is all about Stern's willingness to pander to thinly veiled racism.

Now, before you start the "don't play the race card!" rant, be prepared to answer the following question: Why are fights between white hockey players and bench-clearing brawls involving mostly white baseball teams OK, while even the whiff of a fight in an NBA game sends people ballistic?


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> No offense, OMG, but you just seemed to respond without even reading the original post you responded to. There was no altercation in the first incident. Everyone went back down the court, everything was fine.
> 
> But I'm guessing that most of us will just have to agree to disagree on this one...



No, I get it...I just don't agree with the way people are parsing the incidents. The Elson situation could have escalated into a brawl in an eye-blink. Duncan escaped punishment not because HIS actions were different from Amare's, but because of what somebody else did or didn't do. 

Duncan and Amare did the same thing. If the results were different, it had nothing to do with them. Amare is being punished because Nash jawed at the guy who fouled him - Duncan gets a free pass because Elson did not. Since NEITHER incident actually led to a fight, that makes no sense to me.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

I think it's a bad idea to keep everyone on such a tight leash that you can't react without being suspended. Seems to me that the more we try to force players to play an emotional game without being able to let any steam out (now, i'm not saying to let them fight, but we can't expect them to be 100% proper all the time...) we are just increasing the likelihood of when the next brawl happens, it will be worse. We may have a lower percentage of fights, but they all might be more violent.

There is too much pent up frustration in the players because anytime they try to vent there is a T or a Suspension waiting for them.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> No, I get it...I just don't agree with the way people are parsing the incidents. The Elson situation could have escalated into a brawl in an eye-blink. Duncan escaped punishment not because HIS actions were different from Amare's, but because of what somebody else did or didn't do.
> 
> Duncan and Amare did the same thing. If the results were different, it had nothing to do with them. Amare is being punished because Nash jawed at the guy who fouled him - Duncan gets a free pass because Elson did not. Since NEITHER incident actually led to a fight, that makes no sense to me.



It's strange how we all can view this so differntly. I hear what you are saying, but to me (and I think to the league) it's all about intent. 

Duncan might have done the same thing, but he got up and walked on the court to cheer (happens all the time). If you watch the video, Amare walked on the court with one purpose in mind . . . he was going to support/protect the team MVP. Heck, I was the one trying to be cleaver arguing maybe Amare took a long walk to check in (because I'm for the suns), but even I rolled my eyes at my own argument and the league laughed at the suggestion.

Reading the rule and applying it the way it has in the past, league made the right call on both incidents.

Kudos to e for taking this whole concept a step further . . . the league implemented this rule to avoid bench clearing brawls, and I think the rule has been effective. But by implementing this rule and avoiding bench clearing brawls, have they creating an environment that is actually more dangerous to the players. I think yes . . . but I also think the rule stays because the league is more concerned with their reputation (bench clearing brawls=bad) than they are for thier own employees . . . Suns just lost, I'm a bit cynical right now . . .


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Duncan and Amare did the same thing.


No they didn't. Duncan got up to celebrate a nice dunk by a teammate. Amare got up and walked towards an altercation. When Duncan saw his teammate get fouled, he sat back down. When Amare saw it he got up and walked towards it. It's absolutely not the same thing.

You can call it racism if you want, but the job of league management is to set rules that protect the league's reputation, and the league's rep suffers if there is a big fight. Play the race card if you want, but it doesn't matter, Amare and Diaw still broke the rules in place.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Kudos to e for taking this whole concept a step further . . . the league implemented this rule to avoid bench clearing brawls, and I think the rule has been effective. But by implementing this rule and avoiding bench clearing brawls, have they creating an environment that is actually more dangerous to the players. I think yes . . . but I also think the rule stays because the league is more concerned with their reputation (bench clearing brawls=bad) than they are for thier own employees . . . Suns just lost, I'm a bit cynical right now . . .


I don't think it's more dangerous for players, because avoiding major fights makes players safer, but it has created the possibility of an incident exactly like this one, where a cheap shot indirectly results in suspensions for the opposing team, which obviously damages the integrity of the league in the eyes of fans. The solution though isn't to allow more leeway for guys to jump off the bench and join an altercation. The solution is to more strictly punish cheap fouls. The league should be diligent about reviewing fouls after games and retroactively issuing flagrant fouls, fines and suspensions. They did this for Horry, but the punishment could have been more severe, and Bowen probably deserved a punishment as well.

One can say that a team can just send a bench scrub at the opposing team at any time, but you rarely see this actually happen. Why? Because bench scrubs even more than major players are afraid of getting suspended and losing paychecks. If the league were stricter about punishing cheap fouls and intentional fouls, then the disincentive would be that much stronger. They basically have the system in place to do this, it just could be applied more strictly.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

stockfire said:


> I think it's a bad idea to keep everyone on such a tight leash that you can't react without being suspended. Seems to me that the more we try to force players to play an emotional game without being able to let any steam out (now, i'm not saying to let them fight, but we can't expect them to be 100% proper all the time...) we are just increasing the likelihood of when the next brawl happens, it will be worse. We may have a lower percentage of fights, but they all might be more violent.
> 
> There is too much pent up frustration in the players because anytime they try to vent there is a T or a Suspension waiting for them.


The league has had the rule in place for a long time, and we've seen no evidence of this happening at all. It seems the rule in place to minimize violence actually does minimize violence.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> I don't think it's more dangerous for players, because avoiding major fights makes players safer, but it has created the possibility of an incident exactly like this one, where a cheap shot indirectly results in suspensions for the opposing team, which obviously damages the integrity of the league in the eyes of fans. The solution though isn't to allow more leeway for guys to jump off the bench and join an altercation. The solution is to more strictly punish cheap fouls. The league should be diligent about reviewing fouls after games and retroactively issuing flagrant fouls, fines and suspensions. They did this for Horry, but the punishment could have been more severe, and Bowen probably deserved a punishment as well.
> 
> One can say that a team can just send a bench scrub at the opposing team at any time, but you rarely see this actually happen. Why? Because bench scrubs even more than major players are afraid of getting suspended and losing paychecks. If the league were stricter about punishing cheap fouls and intentional fouls, then the disincentive would be that much stronger. They basically have the system in place to do this, it just could be applied more strictly.


I don't see those bench clearing brawls as real dangerous to players . . . image wise they look terrible for the NBA, but I can't remember the last brawl where a player was seriously hurt. Ususally a lot of talking and grabbing ("don't hold me back") It is the hard foul/cheap shot that I think poses more threat of injury. I agree that rarely (if at all) are you goiong to see a scrub try to intentionally hurt a player, but creating an environment where the cheap foul might actauly benefit the team does pose an unneeded risk to players (IMO).

I would like to see the rule changed so that the NBA could have suspended Horry for a game (it really wasn't that hard of a foul) and simply fined Amare and Diaw. To me that would have been a fair result.

I agree that they can try to control by how they punish the hard foul, but I think they do a good enough job with that as it is. It's more the automatic suspension for any violation of the rule that I think should be slightly modified.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I don't see those bench clearing brawls as real dangerous to players . . . image wise they look terrible for the NBA, but I can't remember the last brawl where a player was seriously hurt.


Tell that to Rudy T who was running to break a fight and was clobbered by Kermit Washington. Didn't he spend 2 months or more in the hospital after that?

The rule makes sense. If you look at the percentage of people DUI that get into accidents - it is rather small. Try telling that however to the mother of a child that was killed by someone driving while drunk...


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

andalusian said:


> The rule makes sense. If you look at the percentage of people DUI that get into accidents - it is rather small. Try telling that however to the mother of a child that was killed by someone driving while drunk...



DUII is a perfect example. If you commit a DUII, it's your first and you don't hurt anybody, the legal system let's you enter diversion, they don't suspend your license and the case is dimsissed if you go through a program.

The NBA should have something that mirrors the DUII laws. If you leave the bench, don't touch anybody, it is your first offense . . . just fine them but don't suspend them.

I hope Stern reads this board. : )


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

I'm not sure if this has been posted, but...



> al·ter·ca·tion (ôl'tər-kā'shən)
> n.
> *A vehement quarrel*.



Of course, we then need to define vehement...



> ve·he·ment (vē'ə-mənt)
> adj.
> Characterized by forcefulness of expression or intensity of emotion or conviction; fervid: a vehement denial. See synonyms at intense.
> Marked by or full of vigor or energy; strong: a vehement storm.


and finally, we'd better get our arms around what a quarrel really is...



> quar·rel1 (kwôr'əl, kwŏr'-)
> n.
> An angry dispute; *an altercation*.
> A cause of a dispute or an argument: We have no quarrel with the findings of the committee.


so does this clear things up?



http://www.answers.com/altercation&r=67


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> DUII is a perfect example. If you commit a DUII, it's your first and you don't hurt anybody, the legal system let's you enter diversion, they don't suspend your license and the case is dimsissed if you go through a program.
> 
> The NBA should have something that mirrors the DUII laws. If you leave the bench, don't touch anybody, it is your first offense . . . just fine them but don't suspend them.
> 
> I hope Stern reads this board. : )


So you agree with the rule but want to see finer granuality of punishments. I generally do not think there is a big issue there. I would argue however, that if caught drunk driving - you are not allowed to continue to drive until you sober up - so taking the analogy further - maybe everyone that stands during a fight is automatically ejected. Add the people that started the fight and were on the floor - and this could be the greatest all scrub playoff match ever. I would actually pay good money to see the Pat Burke vs. Mat Bonner game 7 marquee matchup. Good times.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

BuckW4GM said:


> no, he didn't. as i already pointed out many times in this thread, duncan stood up and took a couple of steps onto the court to CELEBRATE a nice dunk by elson. elson was then undercut by jones as he landed. duncan was still on the court looking on when bowen stood up and get him to sit. there wasn't an altercation when elson was undercut. i don't think the refs even called a foul on that play. all players went on to play without even jawing at one another. i still don't get why there are so many who keep bringing this up as some kind of "incident."


Duncan stood up to celebrate yes, then when whistles blew he walked as afar as the 3 point line onto the court. I'm not saying he should be suspended, but him walking onto the court was clearly in protest of a foul not being called.


----------



## JFizzleRaider (Nov 1, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Duncan stood up to celebrate yes, then when whistles blew he walked as afar as the 3 point line onto the court. I'm not saying he should be suspended, but him walking onto the court was clearly in protest of a foul not being called.


But theres a huge difference. The Elson dunk did not become an altercation by any means, and Duncan did not aggressively rush the court. After Horrys hipcheck on Nash, Amare aggressively rushed the court.

In my opinion Nash flopped and exaggerated the Horry hit for more than it was. Did Horry deserve a suspension? Yes. Did Amare deserve a suspension? Yes. Amare violated a rule that has been beat over the heads of NBA players ever since The Pacers-Pistons Brawl got out of hand. It was also brought up with the Mardy Collins/Carmelo Anthony fight. Did players that rushed the court in that altercation get suspended? Yes. Just because its the playoffs the NBA should not play favorites.

Besides, even after all this happened, Phoenix had the game in the bag last night and blew it. San Antonio was horrible the first half and the Suns had a commanding lead. Its Phoenix's fault for not capitalizing and closing out the game, if they would have closed out the damn game, all the whining would have subsided but fact of the matter is, they didn't get it done.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

JFizzleRaider said:


> But theres a huge difference. The Elson dunk did not become an altercation by any means, and Duncan did not aggressively rush the court. After Horrys hipcheck on Nash, Amare aggressively rushed the court.


Oh please. Why do you supposed Duncan left the bench? To ask Elson if he and his wife wanted to come over next week for iced tea and a Sandra Bullock movie marathon? He left his bench with the same intent that Amare left his bench. The NBA got this one wrong. The rule is stupid, and I acknowledge that punishments had to be doled out, but the rule wasn't even applied consistently here.

-Pop


----------



## JFizzleRaider (Nov 1, 2004)

SodaPopinski said:


> Oh please. Why do you supposed Duncan left the bench? To ask Elson if he and his wife wanted to come over next week for iced tea and a Sandra Bullock movie marathon? He left his bench with the same intent that Amare left his bench. The NBA got this one wrong. The rule is stupid, and I acknowledge that punishments had to be doled out, but the rule wasn't even applied consistently here.
> 
> -Pop


Well let's see what Amare thinks...

"I think for the most part, it was (fair)," Stoudemire said of the league's decisions. "I did step on the court. I think my manner behind it was a little more aggressive than when Tim Duncan stepped on the court. That's why they made the decision they did between the two different cases."
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/basketball/nba/spurs/stories/MYSA051707.04C.BKNspurs.notebook.3e5302d.html

ZOMG....He agrees with me....Wow


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Amare's never been credited with being too bright.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

andalusian said:


> So you agree with the rule but want to see finer granuality of punishments. I generally do not think there is a big issue there. I would argue however, that if caught drunk driving - you are not allowed to continue to drive until you sober up - so taking the analogy further - maybe everyone that stands during a fight is automatically ejected. Add the people that started the fight and were on the floor - and this could be the greatest all scrub playoff match ever. I would actually pay good money to see the Pat Burke vs. Mat Bonner game 7 marquee matchup. Good times.



What I disagree with the rule is the automatic suspension, I think they should change it to allow a fine in lieu of a suspension in some limited cases . . . so as not to end up with a result like the one in this thread. I'm not sure about automatically ejecting players who stand up, I think that is a little harsh.

My only point was you used DUII laws to show the rule is good and I was pointing out that the NBA rule is even more harsh than the DUII laws . . . the DUII laws allows for a program in lieu of an ODL suspension in limited cases.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

So the end result of all this... which pretty much everyone saw coming... is that Horry, in another amazing clutch performance, wins game 5 by checking Nash into the boards in game 4... and that my friends... is a shame. 

I understand all the arguments out there. I also believe that there was no perfect solution to the whole thing... but I believe the best one... the one that would have been most just, would have been to NOT suspend Amare or Diaw. You HAVE to consider the circumstances. To say the thing is black and white is ludicrous. Consider the following example. Altercation going on. Players are on bench like they should. Fan in third row throws hot coffee on the backs of the players on the bench who jump up and run a few steps on the court. So you say... it wasn't their intention to join the fight. But wait... Stern says he doesn't get to decide their intention, just like he couldn't make the distinction that Amare and Diaw might have been going to help Nash up. (I have seen the video... neither of them pass Nash) I don't buy the black and white argument. There were a lot of outs presented Stern, including that Amare never left the area immediately in front of the bench... and of course, a highly provocked incident.

What I think we will see more of now... is planned incidents like this. Cheap shots... pay off bigtime. Flopping... pays off bigtime. Welcome to the new NBA... where they go so far enforcing a rule designed to prevent fights... that the net result could be more cheap shots and more real fights. NBA shot an airball on this, they took the easy way out, I think they sat on the bench not because they thought it was wrong to make a gutsy decision (or run out on the court) but because they were frozen and didn't have the guts to make a real decision at all.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't have a problem with the decision. I don't care about the Suns nor the Spurs one way or the other.

I think that the rule was applied fairly. I don't think that the NBA office is part of any sort of conspiracy.

The rule was put in place to clean up the game, and it seems to have done that. Considering the few times this rule has ever even been complained about, and given the seemingly large impact it's had on reducing fighting, I don't think that the rule should necessarily be changed at all.

Ed O.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> What I disagree with the rule is the automatic suspension, I think they should change it to allow a fine in lieu of a suspension in some limited cases . . . so as not to end up with a result like the one in this thread. I'm not sure about automatically ejecting players who stand up, I think that is a little harsh.
> 
> My only point was you used DUII laws to show the rule is good and I was pointing out that the NBA rule is even more harsh than the DUII laws . . . the DUII laws allows for a program in lieu of an ODL suspension in limited cases.


A diversion agreement is not a suspension of any punishment. It is still _thousands of dollars_ in fines and fees. It's still a severe punishment.

For an NBA player though, a fine isn't necessarily a severe punishment. For a guy like Amare who makes $100k per game, a $5-25k fine isn't so significant. A 1 game suspension in this case is somewhat analogous to a diversion agreement. If he and Diaw had done more, like gone out and started a major brawl, they would have gotten a longer suspension.

It does suck that this fun series is affected by the rules in this way, but the rules are in place for every game for every team of both the regular season and the playoffs. They aren't going to nerf them just because the outcome in this case is unpleasant. There's no reason for guys to come off the bench and get involved in a fight, or even take steps toward that end, and the severity of punishment is because the league places a very high priority on preventing that from happening.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> A diversion agreement is not a suspension of any punishment. It is still _thousands of dollars_ in fines and fees. It's still a severe punishment.
> 
> For an NBA player though, a fine isn't necessarily a severe punishment. For a guy like Amare who makes $100k per game, a $5-25k fine isn't so significant. A 1 game suspension in this case is somewhat analogous to a diversion agreement. If he and Diaw had done more, like gone out and started a major brawl, they would have gotten a longer suspension.



A diversion agreement is absolutely a suspension of punishment. In fact the whole idea is you plead guilty and they suspend punishment/sentence, if you complete the program no sentence is imposed and the case is dismissed.

If convicted of a DUII in Oregon, it is mandated to do 2 days of jail or 80hrs of community service, it goes on your record as a conviction, there is a minimum 1000 fine, and have your driver's license suspended for a year. If you enter diversion, you're license is not suspended, there is no conviction on your record, no minimum 1000 fine, and there is no jail or community service. Also, I'm not sure how much your diversion cost you, but mine . . . I mean my friend's, cost about $450.00.

I think we are splitting hairs with the NBA rule, I think there should be some language that allows for something less than a suspension for very minor violations of the rule, but I get that you think the minimum 1 game suspension is a good thing. 

I think the NBA applied the rule correctly in the Amare situation, but do you really think it was a fair result?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

There goes the series for Phoenix, enjoy your * title Spurs...the Lakers have a couple and now you've finally got yours...if there wasn't reason enough to loathe the Spurs anymore...


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> A diversion agreement is absolutely a suspension of punishment. In fact the whole idea is you plead guilty and they suspend punishment/sentence, if you complete the program no sentence is imposed and the case is dismissed.
> 
> If convicted of a DUII in Oregon, it is mandated to do 2 days of jail or 80hrs of community service, it goes on your record as a conviction, there is a minimum 1000 fine, and have your driver's license suspended for a year. If you enter diversion, you're license is not suspended, there is no conviction on your record, no minimum 1000 fine, and there is no jail or community service. Also, I'm not sure how much your diversion cost you, but mine . . . I mean my friend's, cost about $450.00.
> 
> ...


I've never had a DUII, but my brother's cost something like $5k, which included fines, fees and the cost of a mandatory substance abuse treatment program. Another friend said he paid over $3k for his, although I don't know how that was itemized, and all he did was blow a 0.10 while driving a drunker friend home to prevent them from driving. I don't know why they didn't get away just paying $450, which is still alot of money IMO, but it seems that although a diversion is nominally a bypass of punishment, it's still itself a serious punishment.

I don't think the result in Amare's case was totally fair, just like I don't think my friend's DUII was fair either, but it's understandable. The rules are universal and well known, and there's no good justification for the league not to enforce the rules in this case. Should they make special exceptions for star players in great playoff series?

I think it's unfair to the fans who want to see each team go at full strength, and I think it's unfair that the Spurs end up rewarded for thugging up the series, but I think the rule itself has been effective, and it wouldn't be a problem at all if Amare and Diaw hadn't stupidly jumped off the bench to join an altercation. I can understand why they wanted to, but I still put the blame for all of this on them, because they knew about the rule and the severity of punishment and should simply have avoided breaking it.


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

I don't get people who keep saying Duncan stepped on the court only to celebrate a dunk. They showed in the replay over and over that Duncan yes, initially took a step over the out of bounds line and celebrated the dunk, but as the undercut took place, then proceeded to take several more steps further out, clearly looking at that play with that wide eyed as-close-to-pissed look that Duncan gets, which prompted Bowen to get up and pull him back. Yeah, Duncan took a step on to the court while jumping up and celebrating. He then came further out when the incident occurred and had to be pulled back. Now unless you want to claim that he was only celebrating his team mate possibly being hurt by taking further steps out, then that pretty much makes your argument of "only celebrating a dunk" riddled full of holes.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> I don't think the result in Amare's case was totally fair, just like I don't think my friend's DUII was fair either, but it's understandable. The rules are universal and well known, and there's no good justification for the league not to enforce the rules in this case. Should they make special exceptions for star players in great playoff series?



I agree, currently there is no justification for the league not to enforce the rules in this case. I've always stated that it was the right call by the NBA given the current rule and application of it in the past. But I disagee that the result is fair (that ruling could have basically cost the suns a playoff series . . . for Amare split second reaction that caused no harm).

That is why I think the rule should be changed (to allow the league not to effectively be forced to have an impact on a series for a nothing event) . . . but we are going in circles . . .


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

TheBlueDoggy said:


> I don't get people who keep saying Duncan stepped on the court only to celebrate a dunk. They showed in the replay over and over that Duncan yes, initially took a step over the out of bounds line and celebrated the dunk, but as the undercut took place, then proceeded to take several more steps further out, clearly looking at that play with that wide eyed as-close-to-pissed look that Duncan gets, which prompted Bowen to get up and pull him back. Yeah, Duncan took a step on to the court while jumping up and celebrating. He then came further out when the incident occurred and had to be pulled back. Now unless you want to claim that he was only celebrating his team mate possibly being hurt by taking further steps out, then that pretty much makes your argument of "only celebrating a dunk" riddled full of holes.


what incident was that? the one where elson dunked, was undercut, got up and ran back the other end and kept playing? there wasn't even a stoppage of action. none of the players were jawing at each other. how this could be interpreted as an "altercation" is beyond me.

yes, duncan took a couple steps onto the court after he initially stood to celebrate the elson's dunk. was he complaining about the no call? maybe. does he deserve a suspension for stepping on the court to complain a call? i don't think there's a rule for that. T him up? yeah, i've seen that, but never a suspension. bottom line is, there was no altercation when duncan was on the court. no alercation = no suspension. was duncan allowed to occupy the court? maybe not that far out and for that long, but a technical foul is all that should've been given out.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I agree, currently there is no justification for the league not to enforce the rules in this case. I've always stated that it was the right call by the NBA given the current rule and application of it in the past. But I disagee that the result is fair (that ruling could have basically cost the suns a playoff series . . . for Amare split second reaction that caused no harm).
> 
> That is why I think the rule should be changed (to allow the league not to effectively be forced to have an impact on a series for a nothing event) . . . but we are going in circles . . .


ditto. i don't like the rule as it stands either, but the league has been absolutely consistant with this ruling.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> That is why I think the rule should be changed (to allow the league not to effectively be forced to have an impact on a series for a nothing event) . . . but we are going in circles . . .


It is an unfair outcome. I'm not sure that justifies changing the rules though. It's a subjective call, but like the drunk driving 0.08 rule (that's barely buzzed!), I think they deliberately set an overly strict standard. Driving at .08 is a nothing event as well, because a person isn't really impaired at that point, but they set the threshold so low because they don't want people to even approach the danger point. They know that human nature is to push the envelope and walk the line, and they don't want to accept that risk, even if that means having to give DUII's to some people who aren't actually intoxicated.

I think Amare and Diaw are getting punished for something that was a "nothing event", but even knowing that, I can see how the league justifies keeping the standard of behavior so tight. They want to avoid the risk of a major event, and they know it's human nature to walk the line, so they just move the line back to a comfortable safe distance. And they have to punish people who cross it, even if a great danger isn't created, for it to remain an effective deterrent.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that the outcome is bad, but I just accept that even a good rule can at times have a bad outcome when universally applied. It's virtually unavoidable.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> It is an unfair outcome. I'm not sure that justifies changing the rules though. It's a subjective call, but like the drunk driving 0.08 rule (that's barely buzzed!), I think they deliberately set an overly strict standard. Driving at .08 is a nothing event as well, because a person isn't really impaired at that point, but they set the threshold so low because they don't want people to even approach the danger point. They know that human nature is to push the envelope and walk the line, and they don't want to accept that risk, even if that means having to give DUII's to some people who aren't actually intoxicated.
> 
> I think Amare and Diaw are getting punished for something that was a "nothing event", but even knowing that, I can see how the league justifies keeping the standard of behavior so tight. They want to avoid the risk of a major event, and they know it's human nature to walk the line, so they just move the line back to a comfortable safe distance. And they have to punish people who cross it, even if a great danger isn't created, for it to remain an effective deterrent.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that the outcome is bad, but I just accept that even a good rule can at times have a bad outcome when universally applied. It's virtually unavoidable.


That's an interesting point. I can remember when the legal limit in this state was .15!

Did lowering the limit decrease drunk driving? Nope. If you ever sit on a jury in a DUI case, you will be told by the judge that "drunk" driving, and "bad" driving are not at issue. They have removed all discretion from the jury.

IMHO, so called "zero-tolerance" rules are an excuse to absolve the decision makers of any obligation to actually think things thru.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Oldmangrouch said:


> That's an interesting point. I can remember when the legal limit in this state was .15!
> 
> *Did lowering the limit decrease drunk driving? Nope.* If you ever sit on a jury in a DUI case, you will be told by the judge that "drunk" driving, and "bad" driving are not at issue. They have removed all discretion from the jury.
> 
> IMHO, so called "zero-tolerance" rules are an excuse to absolve the decision makers of any obligation to actually think things thru.


After a quick search I couldn't find any numbers, but I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that drunk driving fatalities actually did go into steady decline as the BAC standard was lowered. The goal isn't to absolve judges and juries of decision making responsibility, it's to prevent people from trying to drink just enough to not be seriously impaired before driving, which is a strategy that has obvious pitfalls. Lawmakers, accurately, noticed that people tend to make poor estimations at how much liquor they can hold, so they took the responsibility for making that decision out of their hands.

edit: I'm not sure if this link will work, but if it does, you can see a chart of drunk driving deaths in the US since 1975. It shows that when MADD was formed in 1980 and began their successful campaign to get stricter drunk driving laws, the death rate due to drunk driving in the US has fallen about 40%. This is despite population growth, and increases in per capita car ownership and per capita vehicle miles travelled over that time.

One can't conclusively say that a cause and effect relationship exists, but it sure looks like their strategy has been effective.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> After a quick search I couldn't find any numbers, but I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that drunk driving fatalities actually did go into steady decline as the BAC standard was lowered. The goal isn't to absolve judges and juries of decision making responsibility, it's to prevent people from trying to drink just enough to not be seriously impaired before driving, which is a strategy that has obvious pitfalls. Lawmakers, accurately, noticed that people tend to make poor estimations at how much liquor they can hold, so they took the responsibility for making that decision out of their hands.
> 
> edit: I'm not sure if this link will work, but if it does, you can see a chart of drunk driving deaths in the US since 1975. It shows that when MADD was formed in 1980 and began their successful campaign to get stricter drunk driving laws, the death rate due to drunk driving in the US has fallen about 40%. This is despite population growth, and increases in per capita car ownership and per capita vehicle miles travelled over that time.
> 
> One can't conclusively say that a cause and effect relationship exists, but it sure looks like their strategy has been effective.



I am more inclined to credit programs like DARE that are aimed at educating people......but as you say, the causal relationship is tough to pin down.

Without going on a lengthy diatribe, let me just say this: Chronic alcholics and binge drinkers - the folks who are the major threat - are not impacted by a lowered blood standard. If someone habitually drives with a blood level over .15, lowering the legal level from .10 to .08 isn't going to deter them!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> I am more inclined to credit programs like DARE that are aimed at educating people......but as you say, the causal relationship is tough to pin down.



It is tough to pin down, I think you have to throw into it all when it became the law to wear your seatbelt.

God times have changed. I remember when the family would load up the stationwagon with all us kids piling into the back area, never remember my dad wearing a sealtbelt and DUII used to just be like getting a speeding ticket. Then you go to traffic school for the day and watch "red asphalt" as part of the punishment.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> After a quick search I couldn't find any numbers, but I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that drunk driving fatalities actually did go into steady decline as the BAC standard was lowered. The goal isn't to absolve judges and juries of decision making responsibility, it's to prevent people from trying to drink just enough to not be seriously impaired before driving, which is a strategy that has obvious pitfalls. Lawmakers, accurately, noticed that people tend to make poor estimations at how much liquor they can hold, so they took the responsibility for making that decision out of their hands.
> 
> edit: I'm not sure if this link will work, but if it does, you can see a chart of drunk driving deaths in the US since 1975. It shows that when MADD was formed in 1980 and began their successful campaign to get stricter drunk driving laws, the death rate due to drunk driving in the US has fallen about 40%. This is despite population growth, and increases in per capita car ownership and per capita vehicle miles travelled over that time.
> 
> One can't conclusively say that a cause and effect relationship exists, but it sure looks like their strategy has been effective.


I would bet that the majority of the drop is due to 2 factors: Safer vehicles (the large car explosion, seatbelts and seatbelt usage, airbags, anti-lock brakes, etc.) and the crackdown on repeat offenders, who were always known to have been responsible for a large share of the drunk driving deaths.

The parallel crackdown on "social" drinkers is controversial, and few genuine experts advocated or supported those changes at the time. It was pushed as an agenda by amatuer lobbyists - the MADD folks. Who now get to use casual casuation to prepetuate this dubious policy for future generations.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Masbee said:


> I would bet that the majority of the drop is due to 2 factors: Safer vehicles (the large car explosion, seatbelts and seatbelt usage, airbags, anti-lock brakes, etc.) and the crackdown on repeat offenders, who were always known to have been responsible for a large share of the drunk driving deaths.


another issue that is widely overlooked is the advancement in emergency trauma care. murder rates also dropped in the same time period, but not because there were drastically fewer shootings. 

fewer people die in ERs and ambulances because our hospitals have increasingly improved technologies, training and medications.

if you don't die, you aren't a murder victim or a drunk driving fatality.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Oldmangrouch said:


> I am more inclined to credit programs like DARE that are aimed at educating people......but as you say, the causal relationship is tough to pin down.
> 
> Without going on a lengthy diatribe, let me just say this: Chronic alcholics and binge drinkers - the folks who are the major threat - are not impacted by a lowered blood standard. If someone habitually drives with a blood level over .15, lowering the legal level from .10 to .08 isn't going to deter them!


It wasn't long ago that I was a college student and bar fly (actually I'm still a weekend bar fly), and I can tell you for a fact that the low BAC standard alters people's behavior. People who drink have a terrible time judging their own ability to drive, but since the standard is so low, everyone knows that you not only can't be drunk and drive, you simply can't drink and drive, at least not more than a slow 1 drink per hour. It takes the responsibility for judging intoxication out of the hands of the intoxicated. You can tell a wasted person that he is wasted, and he can still claim he is able to drive. But if you tell him he is at risk of a DUI, he is less likely to disagree.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Masbee said:


> I would bet that the majority of the drop is due to 2 factors: Safer vehicles (the large car explosion, seatbelts and seatbelt usage, airbags, anti-lock brakes, etc.) and the crackdown on repeat offenders, who were always known to have been responsible for a large share of the drunk driving deaths.
> 
> The parallel crackdown on "social" drinkers is controversial, and few genuine experts advocated or supported those changes at the time. It was pushed as an agenda by amatuer lobbyists - the MADD folks. Who now get to use casual casuation to prepetuate this dubious policy for future generations.


You have to look at the time period where the change took place. Right after 1980 cars weren't getting bigger, they were getting smaller. Average car size probably peaked at some point in the mid-70s, and didn't start rising again until the cheap oil days of the mid 90s. The trend in drunk driving deaths seems to go almost opposite of the car-size trend.

I'm sure cracking down on repeat offenders made a major difference. They tightened the rules in multiple ways.

Responding to other's posts - I don't know how DARE would get any credit. Don't they give "just say no" messages about drugs to school children. I don't think they target or have a major effect on adult drunk driving.

And as for better emergency rooms, if that were the primary cause of the reduction, we would expect to see no change in the proportion of auto accidents linked to drunk driving, yet even though we live in a time that is now highly conscious (and certain to report) if a drunk driver is involved, the proportion has gone down.

I'm sure health care, safer cars and punishing repeat offenders has contributed to the drop in drunk driving deaths. But I'm pretty confident the tight legal standards did as well. The drop was immediately following their widespread implementation, and fairly rapid. It hasn't been continuous over the last 25 years, most of the decline was in the 80s. One way to test this hypothesis would be to look at the data from each state, since they didn't all implement the lower BAC at the same time, and see if there is a temporal correlation between the drop in deaths and the date of implementation. This has probably been done, and I bet they found that in fact when you make strict rules against something, it makes that something happen less.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Responding to other's posts - I don't know how DARE would get any credit. Don't they give "just say no" messages about drugs to school children. I don't think they target or have a major effect on adult drunk driving.


OK, we are getting waaaaay off topic, but I have to respond to this.

My son just turned 21. He and his friends are part of the first generation to grow up with programs like DARE. Were the programs 100% successful? No. Did they have a positive impact? Comparing my son and his buds to my generation at that age - I would have to say it has!


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Oldmangrouch said:


> OK, we are getting waaaaay off topic, but I have to respond to this.
> 
> My son just turned 21. He and his friends are part of the first generation to grow up with programs like DARE. Were the programs 100% successful? No. Did they have a positive impact? Comparing my son and his buds to my generation at that age - I would have to say it has!


It is getting way off topic, but what the hey. I had DARE in my elementary school as well, and I'm just shy of 30. I don't know if it is effective or not (my guess is no), but I do remember that their focus was on drugs rather than alcohol, and I don't recall even mention of drunk driving. Maybe they deliver that message in high schools now, but anyway, the major reduction in drunk driving deaths occured in the 1980s, so I don't think we can credit them for that particular event. Also, from what I understand kids now are statistically more likely to use drugs, so I don't know if they are doing any good. :raised_ey :whistling:


----------

