NBA explanation

Gorilla

Booooya!!!
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
277
Reaction score
1
Location
Guatemala City, Guatemala
I know this has gotten beaten to death but I wanted to share an email I got from the NBA regarding the suspensions.
---------------------------------------------------

Thank you for taking the time to contact us about the suspensions of Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw of the Phoenix Suns. Although we probably will not change your mind, we wanted to share with you the rationale for the rule and the facts requiring our decision.


The Rule

Rule 12, Section VII(c) of the NBA Official Playing Rules says: "During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $50,000."

· The purpose of the rule is to prevent an on-court altercation from getting worse by making sure that players on the bench do not become involved -- whether or not they intend to. The fewer the number of players on the court, the less likely it is that an altercation will escalate and the more likely it is that the referees and coaches will be able to restore order without serious injury to players or to fans.

· The rule doesn't look to the intent of the players leaving the bench and it does not distinguish among the curious, the peacemakers or those seeking to become involved in the altercation. The reason for this is simple -- the players on the court have no idea what a player's intent is when he leaves the bench and in the heat of the moment they may well assume the player is approaching as an aggressor. Thus, the language of the rule is firm: "violators will be suspended."

· This is not a rule that can be enforced on a case-by-case basis -- if a player were able to leave the bench and later argue his case and avoid a suspension, there would be more players leaving the bench. And because the rule has been applied consistently over the years, bench-clearing incidents have been rare. Overall, the leaving-the-bench rule, together with others, has succeeded in dramatically reducing the amount of fighting in the league and all but eliminated serious injury during fights that do occur.

· Teams and players are reminded of the rule before every regular season and again before the playoffs. Teams try to ensure that their players comply with the rule by both reminding them of it and assigning assistant coaches the job of keeping players in the vicinity of the bench when incidents do occur.

The Facts Requiring the Stoudemire and Diaw Suspensions

· As soon as Steve Nash was fouled, both Amare and Boris ran toward the scene, each ending up over 20 feet away from the Suns' bench and near the altercation. Despite what many have said, they didn't "walk" a few feet from the bench and they didn't "wander" onto the court. In fact, they engaged in the very conduct the rule was meant to stop.

· No one knew what the players' intentions were when they left the bench and they could very easily have gotten involved in the altercation had it spilled over in their direction. And although you could say they were having a "natural" reaction to seeing their teammate go down, assistant coaches are supposed to stop bench players from acting on those kinds of reactions, which was the case with the 17 other players (active and inactive) who were on the benches at the time and did not leave.

As with all NBA rules, this one can be changed by a vote of the Board of Governors. Rules are typically changed following a recommendation from the Competition Committee, which will discuss the leaving-the-bench rule (along with several other items) at its next meeting. At this time, we don’t have a better rule to recommend.

One thing everyone can agree on: this was an extremely unfortunate circumstance. We never want to suspend players for any game, much less a playoff game, but for all the reasons described above, the facts dictated the application of the rule.

--------------

That is all.

By the way, if the Hawk's pick lands in the top 3 I am going to start believing in the Suns are coursed theories.
 

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
45,668
Reaction score
10,867
Says nothing about Duncan and Bowen leaving the bench. If the rule is firm, and violators will be suspended, they should not have played in the game. Period.
 

Mulli

...
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Posts
51,375
Reaction score
2,733
Location
Generational
I forget, did Amare and Diaw actually end up 20 feet from the bench?
 

dreamcastrocks

Chopped Liver Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Posts
45,668
Reaction score
10,867
I forget, did Amare and Diaw actually end up 20 feet from the bench?

Yep, the both ended up at the time out stripe. I'd say 15'.
 

tobiazz

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Posts
2,153
Reaction score
4
· As soon as Steve Nash was fouled, both Amare and Boris ran toward the scene, each ending up over 20 feet away from the Suns' bench and near the altercation. Despite what many have said, they didn't "walk" a few feet from the bench and they didn't "wander" onto the court. In fact, they engaged in the very conduct the rule was meant to stop.

· No one knew what the players' intentions were when they left the bench and they could very easily have gotten involved in the altercation had it spilled over in their direction. And although you could say they were having a "natural" reaction to seeing their teammate go down, assistant coaches are supposed to stop bench players from acting on those kinds of reactions, which was the case with the 17 other players (active and inactive) who were on the benches at the time and did not leave.

I won't comment on this ever again after this, but here's the hypocrisy in the ruling. Amare and Boris ran to the scene of the foul "as soon as Steve Nash was fouled," not after an "altercation" occured with Horry and Bell. Also, "no one knew what the players' intentions were."

Meanwhile, Duncan left the bench "as soon as [Elson] was [undercut]" and "no one knew what [his] intentions were."

So, while the league office knows noones intentions they will assume that that Duncan had good intentions and that Amare and Boris had bad intentions. Never mind the fact that Amare and Boris returned to the bench without incident which PROVES they did not have bad intentions. Letter of the law--my ass.
 

ActingWild

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2002
Posts
1,472
Reaction score
62
I won't comment on this ever again after this, but here's the hypocrisy in the ruling. Amare and Boris ran to the scene of the foul "as soon as Steve Nash was fouled," not after an "altercation" occured with Horry and Bell. Also, "no one knew what the players' intentions were."

Meanwhile, Duncan left the bench "as soon as [Elson] was [undercut]" and "no one knew what [his] intentions were."

So, while the league office knows noones intentions they will assume that that Duncan had good intentions and that Amare and Boris had bad intentions. Never mind the fact that Amare and Boris returned to the bench without incident which PROVES they did not have bad intentions. Letter of the law--my ass.


AMEN!
 
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
72
Reaction score
0
Location
Troy, Ohio
I won't comment on this ever again after this, but here's the hypocrisy in the ruling. Amare and Boris ran to the scene of the foul "as soon as Steve Nash was fouled," not after an "altercation" occured with Horry and Bell. Also, "no one knew what the players' intentions were."

Meanwhile, Duncan left the bench "as soon as [Elson] was [undercut]" and "no one knew what [his] intentions were."

So, while the league office knows noones intentions they will assume that that Duncan had good intentions and that Amare and Boris had bad intentions. Never mind the fact that Amare and Boris returned to the bench without incident which PROVES they did not have bad intentions. Letter of the law--my ass.

My thoughts exactly. In other words if Jones throws a punch, Duncan gets suspended. Thuggery is rewarded in the NBA.
 

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
59,937
Reaction score
51,286
Location
SoCal
My thoughts exactly. In other words if Jones throws a punch, Duncan gets suspended. Thuggery is rewarded in the NBA.

and therein lies the greater problem with the rule. the league had to INTERPRET whether an "altercation" occurred or not, despite the fact that the league continues to say that no INTERPRETATION exists with the rule. they interpreted that an altercation existed with the nash-horry foul and that one did not exist with the jones-elson situation. thus, horry's actions as a thug made the former an altercation and put amare/boris reactions at danger while jones' accident made it NOT an altercation and allowed duncan/bowen to get away with the same actions. in fact, to make matters worse, elson even initially goes after jones after the situation, if that's not the start of an altercation, i don't know what is. just one more example of the spurs being the aggressors and somehow not being punished for it.

that's the last i'll say on the board about this. in my head i will damn david stern for all eternity. if and when we win a championship i will make certain that i am courtside (which i would be anyway) and i will mercilessly boo david stern the entire time he is on the microphone. if i ever see him, he will feel my wrath.
 

The Man In Black

Registered
Joined
May 10, 2007
Posts
277
Reaction score
0
No guys, while Elson and James got tangled up after the alley-oop, it didn't even come close to an altercation, Jones walked away...Elson looked at the ref and then walked back towards the Spurs Bench. So while the media was looking for dual suspensions, they were doing it not for application of the rule, they were doing it to try to get the series extended. How many times have we heard that the casual fan and media that tells them what to do, would like to see that series go best out of FIFTEEN? I would, you would too but the playoffs need to end in June or at least by the 4th of July. Camp starts in August right?
 

Mulli

...
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Posts
51,375
Reaction score
2,733
Location
Generational
No guys, while Elson and James got tangled up after the alley-oop, it didn't even come close to an altercation, Jones walked away...Elson looked at the ref and then walked back towards the Spurs Bench. So while the media was looking for dual suspensions, they were doing it not for application of the rule, they were doing it to try to get the series extended. How many times have we heard that the casual fan and media that tells them what to do, would like to see that series go best out of FIFTEEN? I would, you would too but the playoffs need to end in June or at least by the 4th of July. Camp starts in August right?

Let it go.
 

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
59,937
Reaction score
51,286
Location
SoCal
No guys, while Elson and James got tangled up after the alley-oop, it didn't even come close to an altercation, Jones walked away...Elson looked at the ref and then walked back towards the Spurs Bench. So while the media was looking for dual suspensions, they were doing it not for application of the rule, they were doing it to try to get the series extended. How many times have we heard that the casual fan and media that tells them what to do, would like to see that series go best out of FIFTEEN? I would, you would too but the playoffs need to end in June or at least by the 4th of July. Camp starts in August right?

no, to my recollection elson initially goes after jones. the reason i remember that is b/c at the time (so i'm talking prior to all the crap at the end of the game and the suspensions) i recall thinking, "hey jackass, that was an ACCIDENT. no need to go after jones."

and you're wrong about the impetus. everyone thought both situations were the same or at least similar enough to warrant similar league action. everyone may have wanted to see the series go longer, but the reason for the uproar (and face it, it was NATIONWIDE uproar, not just complaints from suns fans and a few announcers) was a call for consistency and justice, not just for a longer series.
 

nashman

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 3, 2007
Posts
10,228
Reaction score
6,922
Location
Queen Creek, AZ
Nicely put Ouchie, people act as though Suns fans are the only ones who thought this ruling was absolute CRAP!
 

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
59,937
Reaction score
51,286
Location
SoCal
Nicely put Ouchie, people act as though Suns fans are the only ones who thought this ruling was absolute CRAP!

don't get me wrong, i think the suspensions to amare and boris were correct, but i think duncan and bowen should have been suspended also. man would the nba have loved a game with no amare and duncan!
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
33,988
Reaction score
11,803
Location
Arizona
no, to my recollection elson initially goes after jones. the reason i remember that is b/c at the time (so i'm talking prior to all the crap at the end of the game and the suspensions) i recall thinking, "hey jackass, that was an ACCIDENT. no need to go after jones."

and you're wrong about the impetus. everyone thought both situations were the same or at least similar enough to warrant similar league action. everyone may have wanted to see the series go longer, but the reason for the uproar (and face it, it was NATIONWIDE uproar, not just complaints from suns fans and a few announcers) was a call for consistency and justice, not just for a longer series.

Nicely put Ouchie, people act as though Suns fans are the only ones who thought this ruling was absolute CRAP!

Could not have said it better myself. There was NATIONWIDE negative reaction. It just wasn't Suns fans. Look at the nationwide polls. They were not even close. Look at the articles, the radio show reactions.

Most of all David Stern was in defensive mode for the first time in his career indicating that even he knows he was wrong. He should have either suspended nobody or suspended 2 other players (Duncan and Bowen).
 

SASpursfan

Veteran
Joined
May 26, 2005
Posts
125
Reaction score
0
Could not have said it better myself. There was NATIONWIDE negative reaction. It just wasn't Suns fans. Look at the nationwide polls. They were not even close. Look at the articles, the radio show reactions.

Most of all David Stern was in defensive mode for the first time in his career indicating that even he knows he was wrong. He should have either suspended nobody or suspended 2 other players (Duncan and Bowen).

The initial reaction concerning Duncan on the court was initiated by Steve Kerr, who is part owner of the Suns (I believe). Anyone with any sense of rationale knew they were completely different scenarios.

Its unfortunate that they had to be suspended, I didnt want them to be, but Stern had to be consistent with the rule. IF not it could have set a dangerous precedence for future altercations. This rule was put there so that no bench player can add to an altercation. Regardless, if they didnt participate afterwards. Imagine what would have happened if they did.
 
OP
OP
G

Gorilla

Booooya!!!
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
277
Reaction score
1
Location
Guatemala City, Guatemala
The initial reaction concerning Duncan on the court was initiated by Steve Kerr, who is part owner of the Suns (I believe). Anyone with any sense of rationale knew they were completely different scenarios.

Its unfortunate that they had to be suspended, I didnt want them to be, but Stern had to be consistent with the rule. IF not it could have set a dangerous precedence for future altercations. This rule was put there so that no bench player can add to an altercation. Regardless, if they didnt participate afterwards. Imagine what would have happened if they did.

You really think this "event" didn't set any kind of precedence?? Not for altercations, but for cheap shots??
 

Covert Rain

Father smelt of elderberries!
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2005
Posts
33,988
Reaction score
11,803
Location
Arizona
The initial reaction concerning Duncan on the court was initiated by Steve Kerr, who is part owner of the Suns (I believe). Anyone with any sense of rationale knew they were completely different scenarios.

Its unfortunate that they had to be suspended, I didnt want them to be, but Stern had to be consistent with the rule. IF not it could have set a dangerous precedence for future altercations. This rule was put there so that no bench player can add to an altercation. Regardless, if they didnt participate afterwards. Imagine what would have happened if they did.

They didn't have to be. Do you even know the words in the actual rule were put in place and vague to give the league some room to make judgment calls? The term "Proximity" or "vicinity" or "altercation" are vague terms at best. The rule was put there to prevent players from adding to the altercation. At no time did Amare or Diaw. If the rule was put in place so no player lifts his backside from the bench that would be different and you might have an argument.

Not to mention that Amare left the bench before Raja and Horry got into it. Again, another Spurs fan "cherry picking" facts.
 

nashman

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 3, 2007
Posts
10,228
Reaction score
6,922
Location
Queen Creek, AZ
Exactly Gorilla, if anything it set the precedence for the cheap shots to begin to try and get other teams players suspended. The rule will probally be changed this offseason because of this incident and unfortunately we will be the team that got screwed out of a championship by it!
 
OP
OP
G

Gorilla

Booooya!!!
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
277
Reaction score
1
Location
Guatemala City, Guatemala

See, this is why you need to let us Suns fans discuss this topic without interfering. The same way you are not going to change our mind about the way we feel, we aren't going to change yours. So why even bother. At least it's the Spurs against everybody else and not the other way around. Come to think about it, the Spurs, Stern and Jackson against everybody else.
 

SASpursfan

Veteran
Joined
May 26, 2005
Posts
125
Reaction score
0
They didn't have to be. Do you even know the words in the actual rule were put in place and vague to give the league some room to make judgment calls? The term "Proximity" or "vicinity" or "altercation" are vague terms at best. The rule was put there to prevent players from adding to the altercation. At no time did Amare or Diaw. If the rule was put in place so no player lifts his backside from the bench that would be different and you might have an argument.

Not to mention that Amare left the bench before Raja and Horry got into it. Again, another Spurs fan "cherry picking" facts.

I think it was D Antoni who made it seem worse than it really was. Yes it was a hard foul (or cheap shot) , but why did he run over to Horry like he did? Then the ref responds by trying to hold him back. Amare and Diaw have since left the bench, to what is now perceived to an altercation between players, before Bell and Nash are going at Horry. Since you have so many people standing and going at each other, the league defines this as an altercation and Diaw and Amare get screwed.
Hell I didnt think anything about them possibly getting suspended until I read what was posted in here. Many posters, the Phoenix organization, knew that the rule was the rule and they they were going to get suspended for coming off the bench.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
534,858
Posts
5,246,908
Members
6,274
Latest member
G-PA
Top