Posted by mythfaze:

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]

Agree to disagree - fair enough.

Also to be fair, no technicals, flagrants, pushing, shoving, anything in this so-called altercation.

In all cases where there has been one of the above + people off the bench, the league has been consistent.

Certainly not. What about the Rick Fox-Doug Christie incident mentioned in the other thread, as an example?

Posted by Solace:

Posted by mythfaze:

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]

Agree to disagree - fair enough.

Also to be fair, no technicals, flagrants, pushing, shoving, anything in this so-called altercation.

In all cases where there has been one of the above + people off the bench, the league has been consistent.

Certainly not. What about the Rick Fox-Doug Christie incident mentioned in the other thread, as an example?

Just posted in that thread... as Stu Jackson mentioned, the rule was intended for on-court incidents.

"Our rule regarding an automatic suspension for players leaving the bench was not intended to apply in a highly unusual situation like this one, where an altercation occurs in an access tunnel or hallway,'' NBA vice president Stu Jackson said. "In this circumstance, our judgment was that the players who left the bench were attempting to break up the fight and did not escalate the altercation.''

As I also mentioned in that thread, the second half of his quote gives you guys tons of ammo (and also pisses me off to no end. I don't believe he pulled the "they didn't escalate the altercation" card)

The bottom line is that it's a judgment call, yet the league is refusing to use any sort of logic. Clearly the rule had a deeper purpose; instead it's being used for something else.

It's like having an elastic clause in the rule book. If you know something makes no sense, why not do what's right instead?

Here's an example. When I was in college, I was in a differential equations class. Prof. gives a friggin' sadistic test. I was actually rocking on it, but just ran out of time. I went to talk to the prof after that and asked if he could give more times on the tests. He said he couldn't because it would be unfair to everyone else who ever took one of his tests since they didn't get more time. And then he added, unless I had a condition which required him to give more time. At that moment I realized what a dumb **** he was. I told him how ridiculous that was and stormed out. Sometimes you have to use your brain instead of blindly following policy. Anyone who blindly follows policy is a monkey. Period.

With those suspensions against the Suns, and the bulls showing the Pistons weaknesses, it looks like Duncan is coming alive and the Spurs are looking good again. The Warriors shocked the Mavs, the Jazz shocked the Warriors, so who knows who' is real with that playoff series. I think the Spurs will settle it. Once Dunc gets going, he's virtually unstoppable.