1) You're asking a player to go against natural human instinct. You see a friend get knocked down, your first instinct tells you to run towards him. Stoudamire and Diaw did that for ONE second, then showed enough restraint to stop themselves because of a rule. They should be COMMENDED for that, not punished.
2) You don't have to treat the rule as black and white; that's why there's a fucking commissioner. Otherwise, if every rule had to be interpreted with no wiggle room, why doesn't a computer just make decisions about this thing? I'm sure someone could program a computer to make decisions based on black and white rules. So there's no point in Stu Jackson having a job, or David Stern having the final say.
David Stern CHOSE to treat this rule as black and white. And that was absolutely the wrong choice. Stoudamire and Diaw fought human instinct better than anyone could've ever expected or hoped, yet they still get punished? And the team that committed the flagrant foul ends up getting rewarded for it?
And Stern gets credit for not hiding? He's the fucking COMMISSIONER. It's in his job description. Give me a fucking break.
This decision was a joke. Nowhere in the NBA rule book does it state that the rule HAS to be interpreted in black and white. David Stern and Stu Jackson CHOSE to interpret it that way. And that was incredibly irresponsible and removed the human element out of a situation that involves human beings, not machines.
The decision was a joke. This thread is a joke.
2) You don't have to treat the rule as black and white; that's why there's a fucking commissioner. Otherwise, if every rule had to be interpreted with no wiggle room, why doesn't a computer just make decisions about this thing? I'm sure someone could program a computer to make decisions based on black and white rules. So there's no point in Stu Jackson having a job, or David Stern having the final say.
David Stern CHOSE to treat this rule as black and white. And that was absolutely the wrong choice. Stoudamire and Diaw fought human instinct better than anyone could've ever expected or hoped, yet they still get punished? And the team that committed the flagrant foul ends up getting rewarded for it?
And Stern gets credit for not hiding? He's the fucking COMMISSIONER. It's in his job description. Give me a fucking break.
This decision was a joke. Nowhere in the NBA rule book does it state that the rule HAS to be interpreted in black and white. David Stern and Stu Jackson CHOSE to interpret it that way. And that was incredibly irresponsible and removed the human element out of a situation that involves human beings, not machines.
The decision was a joke. This thread is a joke.
Stern did the right thing......you don't make rules and then provide "wiggle room" for guys to get out of it. You can disagree with the rule all you want, but providing "wiggle room" is a slippery slope. Stern has no choice but to enforce the rules that are on the books.
And what is all this about "human instinct"? Why did only two players leave the bench.....what about the other 20 or so players and coaches? Didn't they feel these same strong instinctive impulses to join the melee. Perhaps all these reserves and coaches should all be given some type of award for controlling their instincts so admirably. And lets not forget the fans....they controlled their instincts as well as none of them stormed the court either, even when some of their favorite players may have been involved. In fact, in the entire arena only two people rushed toward the commotion, and elsewhere in this thread it is suggested these two guys did such a wonderful job of controlling their instincts. Give me a break!
And what is all this about "human instinct"? Why did only two players leave the bench.....what about the other 20 or so players and coaches? Didn't they feel these same strong instinctive impulses to join the melee. Perhaps all these reserves and coaches should all be given some type of award for controlling their instincts so admirably. And lets not forget the fans....they controlled their instincts as well as none of them stormed the court either, even when some of their favorite players may have been involved. In fact, in the entire arena only two people rushed toward the commotion, and elsewhere in this thread it is suggested these two guys did such a wonderful job of controlling their instincts. Give me a break!
Skins i have always respected your opinions,threads, picks, and posts. But this is some of the dumbest shit Ive ever heard. You are telling me out of the 8 players and 5 coaches on the bench the two players the stepped 20 feet from the bench towards the altercation should be rewarded. So you are saying that if i pull a gun on somebody that i felt disrespected me or my boys but I restrain myself and dont shot them and put it away the police should say good job. Also about this interpetation thing man its not up to him. Onwers, unions, players, coaches all get to put there two sense in to the rules set. If they want stern to give leway on this rule change the fucking rule. But dont blame stern for following the rule. Also this stupid human instinct crap the are pleny of hard hits and cheap shots that has happen in the nba. Posey to hinrich last year and richardson to okur this year which in my opinion both where more dirty than nash hit. How many people got suspended for leaving the bench 0. They are all human and have the so called human instinct right, but the difference is they thought abotu what they was doing. So you are totally wrong with this thread is a joke crap.
Anyone who doesn't understand the human instinct aspect of this is either lying to himself or has never been in a situation that would trigger a fight or flight response. Lucky you for living a sheltered life. Leave your room every once in a while.
Tim Duncan ran onto the court after he saw Elson go down...he was on the court for a few seconds, then got pulled back.
He wasn't suspended, even though he broke the rule, because he didn't cause an altercation.
Stoudamire and Diaw were on the court for less time than Tim Duncan. They didn't cause an altercation. They were suspended.
The end.
Tim Duncan ran onto the court after he saw Elson go down...he was on the court for a few seconds, then got pulled back.
He wasn't suspended, even though he broke the rule, because he didn't cause an altercation.
Stoudamire and Diaw were on the court for less time than Tim Duncan. They didn't cause an altercation. They were suspended.
The end.
Skins come on, Im a black kid that grew up in pg county, do you really think Ive never been in altercations or had to deal with my human instinct. What Im saying is if I got an a fight in school and even if I didnt start it both people got suspended. Do you think my principal said oh its the human instinct that you defended yourself or your girl so its ok you fought. No he didnt, Or if at the club and I get into the security and police didnt care about the human instinct either. Plain and simple is you are not understanding the rule. Duncan did not get in trouble because there was not an altercation going on. It states if you leave the bench during an altercation. Players jump up and down and take steps on the court all the time, just cant do it when guys are in each other face and pushing.
The so called end.
What a horrendous example. If you're at school, and some guy takes a swing at your girlfriend, and you pummel the guy, you'd probably get suspended (although it's debatable).
But, if some guy takes a swing at your girl, and you take one step towards the guy, but then stop yourself from doing anything, should you get suspended?
There's no point in debating this any longer.
But, if some guy takes a swing at your girl, and you take one step towards the guy, but then stop yourself from doing anything, should you get suspended?
There's no point in debating this any longer.
No I wouldnt get suspended cause the rule isnt if i head towards him the rule is if i fight him or hit him. Thank you for making my point for me. The rule is during an altercation you cant leave the bench area and head towards the altercation. Nobody is saying you cant stand up and show emotion just cant leave becnh area thats the rule. So they broke the damn rule.
Is that a joke? They took what, three steps? They didn't GET INVOLVED in the altercation.
And stop referring to the fact that they technically broke a rule. No one's arguing that. Doesn't mean Stern did the right thing.
Also, in the rule book, "altercation" isn't clearly defined. Neither is "immediate vicinity of the bench."
So you argue that David Stern had to enforce to rule to the exact letter of the law...yet he was allowed to use personal judgment in determining whether or not Elson's fall was an altercation? So he gets to use personal judgment in one instance, but not the other? Wrong. He's also allowed to use personal judgment to determine how far "immediate vicinity of the bench" is.
So in some instances he gets to be the judge, but in others he's allowed to use the cop-out that he has to the enforce the rule to the exact letter of the law? Yeah, that makes sense.
I'm done.
And stop referring to the fact that they technically broke a rule. No one's arguing that. Doesn't mean Stern did the right thing.
Also, in the rule book, "altercation" isn't clearly defined. Neither is "immediate vicinity of the bench."
So you argue that David Stern had to enforce to rule to the exact letter of the law...yet he was allowed to use personal judgment in determining whether or not Elson's fall was an altercation? So he gets to use personal judgment in one instance, but not the other? Wrong. He's also allowed to use personal judgment to determine how far "immediate vicinity of the bench" is.
So in some instances he gets to be the judge, but in others he's allowed to use the cop-out that he has to the enforce the rule to the exact letter of the law? Yeah, that makes sense.
I'm done.
