Posted by islesfan:

Anybody but the cheapshot Spurs at this point.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by franco12:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by islesfan:

Anybody but the cheapshot Spurs at this point.

If I'm D'Antoni I'm seriously tempted to send Pat Burke in the game and while the Spurs are on a fast break have him Waltz over to the Spurs sideline and choke the mess out of P.J. Carlesimo.

LOL.. seriously, why not just send pat burke over to the bench, punch duncan in the face and back up to the court and if any spurs player foot goes over that line, then suspend them, and say they were in the "vicinity".

Its now worth the risk- what is the worse that happens- your player gets tossed- they get 2 shots and the ball?

4 points and you could have the league suspend the opponents players?

Seriously, what stops a team from sending out a thug and doing exactly what Horry did in front of the opposing teams bench?

The worst that happens is a 2 game suspension for a player that wouldn't play much anyway. Players don't get paid for the playoffs so he doesn't lose any paychecks.

Posted by Solace:

Posted by mythfaze:

I especially don't get why everyone here is so outraged by these suspensions. We got screwed over a lot worse than the Suns did back in the day. Would you prefer Stern change his mind now on how the rules are interpreted so the Suns have a better chance for success? Would it make you feel better if the ruling on us was truly a one-time, arbitrary thing?

If Stern decided to screw us and then let everyone else go in similar situations, I'd be livid.

Because we all know the rule is silly and should've been changed years ago. Actually, silly doesn't cover it; retarded does. What's worse is being mindless. "Well we have this rule..." Okay, but clearly the intent of the rule was to avoid bench players joining in on brawls. It's not being used for that, because it was written so haphazardly.

To me, it has nothing to do with the Knicks getting screwed. It's over, done, I don't want to think about it. By now, the rule should've been revised. The fact that it's still there means the league is using it to manipulate outcomes; case in point. As for consistency, they haven't been fully consistent. Duncan is just one example.

Now, we have likely the most important series of the NBA playoffs; the winner of this series will likely become NBA champions. Right now the deciding factors in that series are David Stern's power trip and Nash's bloody nose if the Suns lose. That's just not right. Rules were made to be reviewed and revised when they don't make sense. This one doesn't.

[Edited by - Solace on May 16 2007 4:20 PM]

Posted by mythfaze:

1) Stern said himself not one GM has approached him about changing the rule. You would think if it bothered them all that much they'd try to get it changed, no? Pretty sure the NBA doesn't have it on the books to manipulate outcomes.

Posted by mythfaze:

2) Duncan didn't step on the court during an altercation. There has been no inconsistency in the way the rule has been called.

Posted by Solace:

Posted by mythfaze:

1) Stern said himself not one GM has approached him about changing the rule. You would think if it bothered them all that much they'd try to get it changed, no? Pretty sure the NBA doesn't have it on the books to manipulate outcomes.

Then the GMs aren't doing their jobs. I also don't believe a word that comes out of the rat's mouth.

Posted by mythfaze:

2) Duncan didn't step on the court during an altercation. There has been no inconsistency in the way the rule has been called.

Yes he did. Yes there is. You believe there isn't, most of the board believes there is and has tried to demonstrate it to you. Just the fact that it's up for discussion means this rule is very open to interpretation, which means it could be interepreted differently. It's being interpreted however David Stern feels like. If you disagree with that, then let's agree to disagree, because it seems clear as day to many of us.

[Edited by - Solace on May 16 2007 4:30 PM]