I would think Stern would rather the Suns and their star power succeed rather than handicap them for a game. Ratings wise the suns do well.

It would have showna a bias had they not suspended those two.

Again, I think it sucks, but Stern was dammed if he did and dammed if he did not.

Its easy for guys like Dan Patrick to take a stand to hype ratings. Nothing like getting listeners riled up to keep then listening.

Ever listen to mike and mike in the morning. THey always disagree to keep the entertainment value up.

I can't imagine a situation where suspending those two is any way beneficial to anyone but the Spurs and the league, while stupid, painted themselves into the corner a long time ago.

If you want to know why the rule is in place go find a video of Rudy T. getting his face shattered running into Kermit Washingtons fist. Its a good rule, it just needs more tweeking.

ESPN Insiders can hear the whole thing here. Stern is not charming -- he has his bully hat on with Dan Patrick -- but he is not, it strikes me, wrong, either.

Some key Stern quotes:

There is no way to know if someone is running out on the court as friend or foe. When Rudy Tomjanovich was running out to see what was going on and trying to break up a fight, his face was forever changed. ...

It's not being decided by [Robert Horry]. It's being decided by two Phoenix Suns who knew about the rule, forgot about it, couldn't control themselves, and didn't have coaches who could control them. And don't you forget it. Now, is it exactly fair? Probably not. Is it a red letter rule? Absolutely. Did cost other players and teams their playoffs and championships? Yes. So, I guess there's no way for us to get the message through. Do you think next year the players will understand it?

I'm unhappy with the result. If the owners would like to change it, I'm happy to do it, believe me. I'd be very happy to do it. But to listen to the palaver that Robert Horry changed the series is just silly. What changed the series is that Amare and Boris ran out onto the court.

Stern also later added "I guess it's a shame that I have a rule that I have to enforce," although he also adds that in the decade that rule has been in effect, no owner has ever suggested a change. Finally, he does not volunteer that the rule has anything to do with the image of the league, but says that it is about making sure players don't get hurt or killed.

-TrueHoop

[Edited by - mythfaze on 05-16-2007 3:43 PM]

No one is saying stern is wrong, but as the commisioner he has the ability to look at what is in the best interest of the game, for the fans and players. We are not asking him to try and judge what players intentions are when running on the court, but in this case looking at amare and diaw, could he not have said they were not in the "vicinity" just as easy. as isle said, what is in the "vicinity" how big is that "vicinity" come on!

Posted by mythfaze:

Posted by tkf:

No one is saying stern is wrong, but as the commisioner he has the ability to look at what is in the best interest of the game, for the fans and players. We are not asking him to try and judge what players intentions are when running on the court, but in this case looking at amare and diaw, could he not have said they were not in the "vicinity" just as easy. as isle said, what is in the "vicinity" how big is that "vicinity" come on!

Not based on the precedent that has been set he couldn't have.

probably not, but it just goes to show how flawed these rules are, leaves no room for intepretation......

Posted by tkf:

Posted by mythfaze:

Posted by tkf:

No one is saying stern is wrong, but as the commisioner he has the ability to look at what is in the best interest of the game, for the fans and players. We are not asking him to try and judge what players intentions are when running on the court, but in this case looking at amare and diaw, could he not have said they were not in the "vicinity" just as easy. as isle said, what is in the "vicinity" how big is that "vicinity" come on!

Not based on the precedent that has been set he couldn't have.

probably not, but it just goes to show how flawed these rules are, leaves no room for intepretation......

That I entirely agree with. The problem lies in the rule, not the interpretation. Get the rule changed if it is such a problem. I found it interesting that Stern said nobody has ever approached him about doing this.

At the same time, the Suns are just idiots for stepping out on to the court. They know the rule, its well documented, people have gotten in serious trouble in the past. Don't be stupid.

Posted by Masterplan:

hey who listened to d'antoni on Dan Patrick? some of y'all should take a cue from him - quit bitching. he did no crying over spilt milk - admitted his team messed up, said he understands the ruling, isn't crying over the suspensions or duncan and bowen not getting punished. he still thinks his team can win tonight! so instead of comparing the situation to serial killers etc, maybe just watch the game and see how things turn out?

Here here

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by mythfaze:

Posted by tkf:

No one is saying stern is wrong, but as the commisioner he has the ability to look at what is in the best interest of the game, for the fans and players. We are not asking him to try and judge what players intentions are when running on the court, but in this case looking at amare and diaw, could he not have said they were not in the "vicinity" just as easy. as isle said, what is in the "vicinity" how big is that "vicinity" come on!

Not based on the precedent that has been set he couldn't have.

You mean like in 2002, when several Sacramento Kings players rushed to the aid of Doug Christie after he was attacked in a tunnel by the Los Angeles Lakers' Rick Fox.

Nobody was suspended and I'm pretty sure that the tunnel from the court to the lockerrooms is nowhere near "the vicinity of the bench".

There is no hard and fast precedent and there is no consistency.

I'd really like to see Duncan come off the bench and walk all the way out to the free throw line tonight. Apparently that would be normal behavior.

LOL... Yea, good point, I just don't see how any one can defend this decision with a straight face....

Posted by mythfaze:

The rule was intended for on court altercations, according to Stu Jackson.

Then again, he also says something else to give some more ammo to your argument:

"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.''

Feel free to take that and run with it...

That pretty much throws any argument that the rule is in place to protect the players. Nor is the rule consistent, because the rule doesn't explicitly state 'on court' incidents. So, we can establish the NBA showed an inconsistency.

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.

The short of this is there was a scuffle between the Raptors and Timberwolves in a game in 2004, people left the bench, no suspensions. Look at around the 1:10 mark.

Bosh, Raptors stun Timberwolves; Garnett charges Bonner

The Associated Press
Last Updated 11:43 pm PST Wednesday, December 15, 2004

TORONTO (AP) - Kevin Garnett didn't like it when Matt Bonner took him down and celebrated, so Garnett went after him.


Chris Bosh had a season-high 24 points and 14 rebounds in Toronto's 96-90 victory over the Minnesota Timberwolves on Wednesday, in a game where the Raptors' Bonner was ejected for flagrantly fouling Garnett. After Bonner knocked Garnett to the floor with 5:24 left in the fourth, Garnett charged the rookie forward. Official Anthony Jordan and Raptors coach Sam Mitchell held Garnett back, but Latrell Sprewell ran toward Bonner and pushed him.

"It was a hard foul. That really didn't even spark me until I saw him pointing into the crowd like he's some enforcer," Garnett said.


Bonner was ejected, and Sprewell received a technical foul.

Fans chanted "Bonner! Bonner!" and heckled Garnett, but nothing else came of the confrontation.

Bonner, called 'Opie' by his teammates, thanked Mitchell after the game.

"I think his life flashed in front of his eyes when Latrell Sprewell and Kevin Garnett went running at him," Mitchell said. "After the game he told me 'Way to grab Kevin, coach.' I told him, 'You know what Matt, way to get out of the way."'

Bonner could receive a one-game suspension for the flagrant foul, but he thinks he won't get anything once the league sees the replay.

"I would never try to play dirty like that," Bonner said.

Bonner, a fan favorite, slapped hands with the fans as he left the court.

"I felt a lot of pride for myself, the team, the whole city of Toronto that they support me so much," said Bonner, who said he's never been ejected before in his life. "I feel honored."

Bosh, who patterned his game after Garnett, came within one point and one rebound of career highs. The second-year forward, who has struggled recently, finished 11-of-21 from the field for the Raptors, who ended a seven-game losing streak.

"It was real big, not only to win the game but to be an important part if it, it's real special to me," Bosh said.

Garnett had 23 points and 15 rebounds, but made just 9 of 27 shots.

After Bonner's ejection brought the crowd to life, Toronto's Morris Peterson made an empathic dunk to give the Raptors an 87-81 lead with 4:47 left.

Bosh beat Garnett off the dribble and made a reverse layup to make it a 10-point lead with 3:31 remaining and Peterson followed with a 3-pointer for an 11-point advantage.

Peterson added a season-high 19 points for the Raptors, who hadn't won since beating Miami on Nov. 30.

Toronto's Jalen Rose, who has struggled since his name came up in trade talks, went 1-of-4 from the field for just four points.

Notes: Toronto general manager Rob Babcock spent 12 years with the Timberwolves before being hired by the Raptors this past summer. ... Mitchell played 12 season in Minnesota. Garnett considered him a mentor. ... Bosh reached career highs in field goals and field goals attempts after going just 13-of-39 in his previous four games.

A referee holds back Minnesota Timberwolves Kevin Garnett after a fragrant foul by Toronto Raptors Matt Bonner in Toronto Wednesday. AP PHOTO/Adrian Wyld

Posted by mythfaze:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by mythfaze:

Posted by tkf:

No one is saying stern is wrong, but as the commisioner he has the ability to look at what is in the best interest of the game, for the fans and players. We are not asking him to try and judge what players intentions are when running on the court, but in this case looking at amare and diaw, could he not have said they were not in the "vicinity" just as easy. as isle said, what is in the "vicinity" how big is that "vicinity" come on!

Not based on the precedent that has been set he couldn't have.

You mean like in 2002, when several Sacramento Kings players rushed to the aid of Doug Christie after he was attacked in a tunnel by the Los Angeles Lakers' Rick Fox.

Nobody was suspended and I'm pretty sure that the tunnel from the court to the lockerrooms is nowhere near "the vicinity of the bench".

There is no hard and fast precedent and there is no consistency.

I'd really like to see Duncan come off the bench and walk all the way out to the free throw line tonight. Apparently that would be normal behavior.

The rule was intended for on court altercations, according to Stu Jackson.

Then again, he also says something else to give some more ammo to your argument:

"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.''

Feel free to take that and run with it...

On the court, I see. So the stands would be a good place for the players to escalate an altercation.

Don't need to run with what Stu "The Double Talker" Jackson says, he doesn't need the help.