Is Stern Outdated?

by Knowledge32 on May 17, 2007 9:05 AM CDT Comment 19 comments

While listening to David Stern's interviews yesterday on ESPN and the Dan Patrick show, I kept getting a sense of opportunity. I now have a better understanding of why Amare and Diaw were suspended. He is the leader of a league (business) that has received criticism in the categories of class and professionalism. However, I found him to be rather close minded as well as smug with his interviews on the San Antonio/Phoenix debate.

Wasn't this an opportunity Mr. Stern? I understand why you suspended them, I get it. Ran off the bench and they are supposed to remain seated when their star point guard is checked into a wall. But wasn't this a chance to step back and reevaluate a possibly outdated rule? I am under the impression this came about in 97' with the New York Knicks? If this is incorrect please help me out. But with this happening and with how great of a series this is, was this an opportunity to better the league and its rules?

I can hear it now, "Knowledge32" how do you better the league? Change this rule. It is too inconsistent for me. After seeing Duncan (while on the bench) walk out past the three point line only to have Bruce Bowen pull him back (thank you Jalen Rose for bringing this to everyone's attention), why was their no suspension here? How about looking at each incident on a case by case basis? Lets factor in intent, situation, and previous violations for that specific player. I would have liked to see a fine for Horry and NO SUSPENSIONS. Let them battle it out on the court.

And how about us? Loyal fans to a league that has had it's heart and talent questioned for the past 8 years. I have been foaming at the mouth for a playoff year like the one we are having. Upsets, battle scars, and HEART! Why punish us too? Now, should Phoenix go down against San Antonio, will anyone give the Spurs credit? What if the Spurs win the title? This incident has tarnished what was turning into the best playoffs we have had in a long time. Thank you Commissioner...and sorry guys, but somebody had to talk about it!

And go Bulls!

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

With apologies to bullshooter

Just because it's a diary doesn't mean you have to write one every day.

by Paxson Jackson on May 17, 2007 9:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

thanks for reading!

"Mr. CAPS"

by Knowledge32 on May 17, 2007 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

heh ;-)

FEAR THE ROOKIES!

by bullshooter on May 17, 2007 9:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll just say

perhaps the best part about the Bulls winning these two games was that I was comfortable not giving a crap about the Suns and Spurs and Stern and Bowen and whatever. :-D

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 17, 2007 9:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree that this was a terrible misapplication

of the rule, but you don't change the rules in the second round of the playoffs. Sure it sucks, and I really think the Suns got screwed last night. The thing that bothers me more is that the league has obviously turned a blind eye to Bruce Bowen's transgressions. It's ok to take cheap shots because I guess there isn't a specific rule against running up behind a guy and stopping yourself on his achilles tendon.

FEAR THE ROOKIES!

by bullshooter on May 17, 2007 9:34 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Bowen is just dirty. I know he is great at "d," but that knee was intentional and Stern did nothing. Then Horry does this. Punishment did not fit the crime.

"Mr. CAPS"

by Knowledge32 on May 17, 2007 9:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like when columnists agree with my views...

...makes them seem like better writers. Bill Simmons is glad I liked his writing better yesterday, even if it is purely subjective.

History does NOT have to repeat itself. Um... Go BULLS!!!

by tyger1147 on May 17, 2007 9:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The rules are the rules

But the rule needs some wiggle room on a case by case basis. The argument can be made that they were just trying to see what happened, not attack. There is only like a foot between the bench and the court. If they are gonna suspend them for this, then they need to review every altercations game tape to see who stepped over the line. If they are gonna enforce the rules in such a critical game, then they need to do it all the time.

by DABUFFS50 on May 17, 2007 11:03 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I usually don't comment on this blog...

Mostly due to my moderate understanding of the intricacy of basketball and there are other blogs I could go to if all I wanted to do was say "WOOO! GO BULLS!!1 PISTONS ARE THE WORST TEAM EVA!!!"

And I wouldn't voice my opinion here, except after reading a good amount on this subject, there is one point I have not seen brought up yet:

THIS RULE IS NOT HARD TO FOLLOW

Everyone is talking about changing it to allow for intent and all this other judgement call BS. The rule is as clear cut as possible so as to take judgement out of the equation. And Stoudemire and Diaw BROKE THE DAMN RULE. It is 100% on them (and maybe their assistant coaches for not immediately tackling those guys when they stood up). Why does Stern need to change a rule that is easy to follow? Because this one time, two players made a mental mistake and allowed it to ruin an important playoff game?

Yes, I agree, the Spurs deserved the greater penalty, and if Amare and Boris would have stayed in their seats, then the Spurs WOULD be the one with the bigger penalty.

by CatBrains on May 17, 2007 11:41 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

CatBrains

You are right, it is not a hard rule to follow. However, given this situation (hence case by case basis) with Horry checking Steve Nash (who seems to be on the receiving end a lot this series) into the wall, this is one of those cases. They stood up and ran to Nash. That is important! They went to their captain, not after Robert Horry. And not onto the floor. Had they gone after Horry or initiated any foul play, then suspend them. Don't suspend them for concern over a team member.

"Mr. CAPS"

by Knowledge32 on May 17, 2007 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Catsbrains

So you are supposed to not move at all when your teammate gets checked into the boards. If it happened near the Spurs bench, they would have reacted accordingly. So, if you are a team who has a history of playing dirty. Make sure that you foul hard near the opponents bench, because if they react, then you can gain the upper hand.

All I'm saying is that there needs to be some sort of investigation into what happens.

What if Lebron and Jason Kidd get into it last night when they crash into the bench. If someone from the bench enters the floor to avoid the fight are you going to suspend them too. You would have to if you follow precedents such as the one that is being set by suspending Amare and Diaw.

by DABUFFS50 on May 17, 2007 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmmmmm

The rule is a rule I agree also. My question is what would have happened had the whole bench gone on the court and had two starting players thrown punches? Three players left?

Bears moving dynamic Hester to offense!

by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on May 17, 2007 1:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

it would make

for a very boring game

"Mr. CAPS"

by Knowledge32 on May 17, 2007 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am curious....

does anyone know if more people watched this game (as far as TNT's ratings go) or less?

"Mr. CAPS"

by Knowledge32 on May 17, 2007 1:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Rules can be waived

when no one is complaining that it be enforced. Also, there is this idea called "clemency" when an executive can excuse the violation of a rule. Stern apparently forgot this is basketball, not a tea party.

by GWKD on May 17, 2007 1:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs