Groin injury during Suns game to sideline Ginobili

[Cheesewater]

Unlike you, I never said that certain behaviour is acceptable or unacceptable.

I'm saying we now know what is acceptable for whining in your world.

And yeah, so what is your definition of whining? Didn't I see you talking about the Spurs being whiners? Is that acceptable btw?

I don't know if you saw it or not. I never said the Spurs whine to the media every 3 weeks (or at all for that matter). I have been known to intimate that the Spurs excel at whining to the officials. Then I backed it up with an outstanding display of what I like to call The Gallery of the Sunburned Palms http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1673927&postcount=81

 

[ambchang_]

The reason why there was so much complaining about that series, because it is not just the Suns fans complaining. Everyone but Spurs fans thought they got a raw deal. It's not that hard to understand. Seriously.

I understand that the Spurs/Nuggets series was physical. It wasn't completely one sided though either.

Completely one-sided? Did you watch the end of Game 4? The Suns got every single call to go their way. Same with Game 5 (where Stoudemire and Diaw were suspended). Game 3 was obviously lopsided in favour of the Spurs, and I agree to it.

The rule has been enforced over and over and over for more than a decade. If the Suns want to blame someone, blame Stoudemire and Diaw for having mental lapses on a rule that has been repeated to them at the beginning of the playoffs, blame the assistant coaches for not doing their job in restraining the athletes, but instead charged the courts themselves, don't go and blame Horry who himself was suspended for 2 games, don't blame Stern and Jackson for enforcing a rule instead of bending over backwards to benefit the Suns.

Take some accountability.

 

[ArizonaSportsFan]

Quote me. Quote me where I have said Stoudemire is childish, stupid, ignorant, baby on this site. I may have made fun of him in being soft.



Of course it made sense, he had been crying about Bowen for a year. What I can say is that Stoudemire seems to be perfectly fine once the whistle was blow for a timeout. Great stuff.



He didn't know he was kicked in the heel? This is awesome.

Again, are you serious. Your whole contention about the whole suspension was that it was Amare being dumb. Ignorant of the rules. Are you recanting on that now?

Yes, once he recovered his breath he was okay, just as anyone would be. "Crying about Bowen for a year", huh? Your delusion is quite grand. Now, if you had said that he complained about Bowen's tactics a year ago, you would at least have made a point. Instead, you stooped to trollish exaggeration.

Can Amare see behind him as he is elevating for a shot? He felt something, could have been inadvertent contact, something "popping", anything. You don't agree? He should have been able to tell at that instant that he was kicked, on purpose?

 

[Evil Ash]

I didn't go through what the articles were saying word by word, but the essense is:
Stoudemire complained about Ginobili as a flopper (he also said he was dirty after game 2 last year, which is a real noodle-scratcher).
He complained about Bowen being dirty after an incident where he couldn't even feel.
He complained about a rule that has been in place for more than a decade, and has been enforced every single time. And to say that Horry penned it is just ludicrous. I am sure Horry would know Stoudemire and Diaw would jump out of their seats, charging ahead with no assistant coaches pulling them back with that hard foul. In fact, a similar incident happened with Baron Davis nailing Derek Fisher in the Utah-GS series, you don't see anybody from the Jazz charging the court now do you?

You mean like Tim Duncan and another Spurs player did earlier in that same game when they felt James Jones undercut a teammate (I think it was Elson but I'm not completely sure)? However since there wasn't a fight they weren't suspended.

Thats why people got pissed because it would be fair to suspend Amare and Duncan because they both did basically the same thing but the league decided that only Amare got suspended.

I do agree that Amare complains too much but it is hard to argue that some of the things that the Spurs did (kneeing Nash in the balls, cross checking Nash into the board) were cheap.

 

[ambchang_]

those three teams were PATHETIC and completely outclassed (much like we were the previous two years), thus the Spurs didn't have to resort to being the old man in the gym (i.e. kneeing people in the balls, cutting their feet out from under them or body-checking their best player in a game that was over.) 16-4 really isn't indicative of how great the Spurs were playing but was more a reflection on how weak the competition was last year. You know that and I know that. The Nuggets? Come on. The 51 win Jazz team who only got to the WCF because Dallas choked against GS? That team was a year away and everyone knew it. And the freaking Cavs? Give me a break. I've admitted to the flaws my team has, it would be nice if you weren't such a ridiculous homer and could do the same.

The Nuggets were on a hot streak going into the playoffs, and there have been people picking the Nuggets to win (definitely the minority):
http://thestartingfive.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/nuggets-spurs-playoff-series-preview/
The Jazz just disposed of the Rockets and the Warriors, and yes, they were a year away.
The Cavs just beat the Pistons in 6 games, they were not even close to as bad as a 4 game sweep in the finals. They were an extremely good defensive team.

The Spurs were playing great basketball last year in the playoffs, the series against the Jazz basically showed how the motion offense could destroy another team. The Spurs even showed that they could consistently nail outside shots when the Cavs collapsed on the Spurs.

 

[ambchang_]

I'm saying we now know what is acceptable for whining in your world.



I don't know if you saw it or not. I never said the Spurs whine to the media every 3 weeks (or at all for that matter). I have been known to intimate that the Spurs excel at whining to the officials. Then I backed it up with an outstanding display of what I like to call The Gallery of the Sunburned Palms http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1673927&postcount=81

Cute.

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

 

[ArizonaSportsFan]

Um, this thread took a turn about Amare whining to the media. Is gesturing or complaining about calls in the game considered whining to the media?

 

[ambchang_]

Again, are you serious. Your whole contention about the whole suspension was that it was Amare being dumb. Ignorant of the rules. Are you recanting on that now?

My intention all along was to say that fans are jumping at the slightest incident involving Bowen to "prove" that he is dirty, and this incident is a terrible example of it. I am also saying that Stoudemire is being unbelievably soft in this incident.

Yes, once he recovered his breath he was okay, just as anyone would be. "Crying about Bowen for a year", huh? Your delusion is quite grand. Now, if you had said that he complained about Bowen's tactics a year ago, you would at least have made a point. Instead, you stooped to trollish exaggeration.

Yeah, he complained about Bowen's "kick" a year ago, which he later recanted. He said Ginobili was dirty, he said Duncan should have been suspended after he was initially suspended. What was exaggerated?

Can Amare see behind him as he is elevating for a shot? He felt something, could have been inadvertent contact, something "popping", anything. You don't agree? He should have been able to tell at that instant that he was kicked, on purpose?

He should have been able to tell that he was kicked immediately. He didn't. Raja Bell thought nothing of it AFTER the incident, Stoudemire himself shut up about it after his teammate didn't agree with it. Coincident huh?

 

[ambchang_]

You mean like Tim Duncan and another Spurs player did earlier in that same game when they felt James Jones undercut a teammate (I think it was Elson but I'm not completely sure)? However since there wasn't a fight they weren't suspended.

Yeah, the rule said there has to be a fight. Something wrong?

Thats why people got pissed because it would be fair to suspend Amare and Duncan because they both did basically the same thing but the league decided that only Amare got suspended.

Read what you just wrote, then go and look up the rule. Tell me they are the "same thing"

I do agree that Amare complains too much but it is hard to argue that some of the things that the Spurs did (kneeing Nash in the balls, cross checking Nash into the board) were cheap.

Whatever floats your boat. There was already a 40 page argument on this earlier on.

 

[ArizonaSportsFan]

I didn't go through what the articles were saying word by word, but the essense is:
Stoudemire complained about Ginobili as a flopper (he also said he was dirty after game 2 last year, which is a real noodle-scratcher).
He complained about Bowen being dirty after an incident where he couldn't even feel.
He complained about a rule that has been in place for more than a decade, and has been enforced every single time. And to say that Horry penned it is just ludicrous. I am sure Horry would know Stoudemire and Diaw would jump out of their seats, charging ahead with no assistant coaches pulling them back with that hard foul. In fact, a similar incident happened with Baron Davis nailing Derek Fisher in the Utah-GS series, you don't see anybody from the Jazz charging the court now do you?

The context of the article was "Nash is a wimp and was acting and 20 years ago that would be a normal play". That is why it may as well have been penned by Horry. Of course he didn't do it to get Amare and Diaw suspended. That was just a series-turning fortunate benefit in the Spurs eyes. Yes, we do visit Spurstalk and know that it is referred to and revered often there.

 

[ambchang_]

Um, this thread took a turn about Amare whining to the media. Is gesturing or complaining about calls in the game considered whining to the media?

Could you read the post where you responded to? When did anybody say that gesturing or complaining about calls in the game could be considered whining to the media?

 

[Cheesewater]

My intention all along was to say that fans are jumping at the slightest incident involving Bowen to "prove" that he is dirty, and this incident is a terrible example of it. I am also saying that Stoudemire is being unbelievably soft in this incident.

This thread isn't about Bowen so why are you bringing it up? And why don't you start a thread defending Bowen's tripping of Nash?

Yeah, he complained about Bowen's "kick" a year ago, which he later recanted. He said Ginobili was dirty, he said Duncan should have been suspended after he was initially suspended. What was exaggerated?

Recanted?

He should have been able to tell that he was kicked immediately. He didn't. Raja Bell thought nothing of it AFTER the incident, Stoudemire himself shut up about it after his teammate didn't agree with it. Coincident huh?

You are inferring a lot here. You obviously don't have any idea whether or not Stoudemire should be able to feel. Don't bring Raja Bell into it. Bell also said he wasn't sure. And he shouldn't be because he wasn't involved. Are you going to tell us now what you think Hubie Brown thinks about it?

 

[Covert Rain]

I don't even have to take the troll of ignore to know what he is saying. Amare got the wind knocked out of him by Bowen taking a dirty elbow.

Let me guess what he is saying.

Bowen is not dirty.
This is not a good example.

Let me know if I am straying of the beaten path here.

 

[ambchang_]

The context of the article was "Nash is a wimp and was acting and 20 years ago that would be a normal play". That is why it may as well have been penned by Horry. Of course he didn't do it to get Amare and Diaw suspended. That was just a series-turning fortunate benefit in the Spurs eyes. Yes, we do visit Spurstalk and know that it is referred to and revered often there.

Sorry I misinterpreted it, I thought you meant the suspensions and how the events unfolded were penned by Horry.

I thought it was a hard-foul, I don't think much of it, its probably not even suspension warranted back in the day, but now, I wouldn't complain if there was a one game suspension. It got to two games because of Stoudemire and Diaw leaving the bench, which I could understand, because people would be whining even MORE severely if Horry was only suspended for 1 game.

 

[Cheesewater]

I don't even have to take the troll of ignore to know what he is saying. Amare got the wind knocked out of him by Bowen taking a dirty elbow.

Let me guess what he is saying.

Bowen is not dirty.
This is not a good example.

Let me know if I am straying of the beaten path here.

No that's pretty close. Also Stoudemire whines to the media every 3 weeks.

 

[ambchang_]

This thread isn't about Bowen so why are you bringing it up? And why don't you start a thread defending Bowen's tripping of Nash?

My fault, I got these threads mixed up when I try to argue a few things together.

Recanted?

Recanted is probably too strong a word, he later didn't say much about it.

You are inferring a lot here. You obviously don't have any idea whether or not Stoudemire should be able to feel. Don't bring Raja Bell into it. Bell also said he wasn't sure. And he shouldn't be because he wasn't involved. Are you going to tell us now what you think Hubie Brown thinks about it?

I don't know what Hubie Brown thinks, because he wasn't calling that game. I am trying to know what your breed thinks, you know the breed that actually are the only objective group in the universe.

 

[jbeecham]

Yeah, the rule said there has to be a fight. Something wrong?

Read what you just wrote, then go and look up the rule. Tell me they are the "same thing"

Whatever floats your boat. There was already a 40 page argument on this earlier on.

Actually the rule says there has to be an altercation (not a fight) and it's completely up to David Stern to interpret what an altercation is (Despite this being a completely uninterpretable rule according to Stern). Elson went up for a dunk and James Jones took out his legs and dumped him on his ass (although apparently unintentionally). Elson's on the ground and Duncan leaves the bench and takes 3 steps into the court, standing inside the 3pt line screaming at the refs and Bowen also comes that far into the court to pull him back. James Jones just turns and runs up the court after it happens. Elson gets up and starts chasing after James Jones and the ref jumps in the way to stop him or else there would've been a fight. This is all going on during live action and the Spurs aren't penalized at all despite having 7 players on the court.

The problem with the rule is that if James Jones sees Duncan & Bowen on the court and gets in Elson's face or lets Elson shove or punch him then Duncan & Bowen have to be suspended, but since he's a nice guy that didn't mean to hurt Elson then Duncan & Bowen get off scott free while the Suns get punished for doing the same thing on an intentional foul by Horry just because a little shoving happened (although that was also by Horry). In this case, the rule and David Stern's interpretation of an uninterpretable rule reward a team for being thugs (Spurs) and punish a team for not being thugs (Suns).

 

[ArizonaSportsFan]

My intention all along was to say that fans are jumping at the slightest incident involving Bowen to "prove" that he is dirty, and this incident is a terrible example of it. I am also saying that Stoudemire is being unbelievably soft in this incident.

I am talking suspension which was in reference to the earlier posts, you are talking the screen. Different animals. How can you know he was being soft? Can you please show me examples of other players taking elbows to the ribs and just ignoring it? You and I don't know what he felt at all. If you can't breathe, you can't breathe. Doesn't matter how tough you are.

Yeah, he complained about Bowen's "kick" a year ago, which he later recanted. He said Ginobili was dirty, he said Duncan should have been suspended after he was initially suspended. What was exaggerated?

"Amare has been crying about Bowen for a year". If you took some heroin last year, would we say that you have been taking heroin for a year? of course not. You know you are exaggerating, so there is no point in continuing along that path with you.

He should have been able to tell that he was kicked immediately. He didn't. Raja Bell thought nothing of it AFTER the incident, Stoudemire himself shut up about it after his teammate didn't agree with it. Coincident huh?

How could he know he got kicked, specifically, versus anything else that happened? If he felt he was kicked but thought it unintentional, does that make a difference? Should that make a difference? You are saying that he didn't even feel anything. Again - watch the play. He definitely felt something. You have thousands of dunks/layups to compare it to.

 

[ArizonaSportsFan]

Could you read the post where you responded to? When did anybody say that gesturing or complaining about calls in the game could be considered whining to the media?

It was your post full of "complaining to the refs" pictures. It was right under it - sorry for the confusion.

 

[ambchang_]

No that's pretty close. Also Stoudemire whines to the media every 3 weeks.

Could you also please tell him that when you put somebody on ignore, your point is to ignore them, not to tell the world how much interest you have in what they say and not have to guts to argue directly?

Thanks.

 

[ambchang_]

It was your post full of "complaining to the refs" pictures. It was right under it initially - sorry about that.

It was a response to the poster who proudly posted a link with a list of pictures of Spurs whining.

 

[Evil Ash]

Yeah, the rule said there has to be a fight. Something wrong?

Yes because

a) it was a live ball when they walked onto the court and should have at least been punished for that aspect of it (I know Spurs fans have difficulty understanding that only 5 players are allowed on the court against the Suns since they seem to go against it all the time - at least twice that I know of off the top of my head)

b) It wasn't actually a fight in the rule. I forget the exact wording but it left plenty up for interpretation.

c) There was no actual fight. Did Amare leave the bench? Yup. Did he throw any punches? Nope.

The rule left everything including what the vicinity of the bench was open for interpretation but they still strictly enforced it because a "rule is a rule" basically. They then followed it up in the offseason by re-writing rules to bail out 99% of the NBA refs for their gambling. You don't see any hypocracy there at all? If you don't you have your head so far up your ass that you can check your own prostate.

Read what you just wrote, then go and look up the rule. Tell me they are the "same thing"

There wasn't a fight in either case (you can argue one was prevented in the case of Amare but there still wasn't one). Both players went out on the court to protect a teammate. One gets suspended, one does not. See my point?

The incident happened that quite possibly affected the outcome of the series. The hypocracy shown by the league following the incident is undeniable

 

[ambchang_]

Actually the rule says there has to be an altercation (not a fight) and it's completely up to David Stern to interpret what an altercation is (Despite this being a completely uninterpretable rule according to Stern). Elson went up for a dunk and James Jones took out his legs and dumped him on his ass (although apparently unintentionally). Elson's on the ground and Duncan leaves the bench and takes 3 steps into the court, standing inside the 3pt line screaming at the refs and Bowen also comes that far into the court to pull him back. James Jones just turns and runs up the court after it happens. Elson gets up and starts chasing after James Jones and the ref jumps in the way to stop him or else there would've been a fight. This is all going on during live action and the Spurs aren't penalized at all despite having 7 players on the court.

Really, not how videos stated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHyuPorlLiQ
Elson was running to the other side of the court where Jones is, and the ref was standing in the way to prevent anything from ever happening. That must be some weird way of chasing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altercation

The problem with the rule is that if James Jones sees Duncan & Bowen on the court and gets in Elson's face or lets Elson shove or punch him then Duncan & Bowen have to be suspended, but since he's a nice guy that didn't mean to hurt Elson then Duncan & Bowen get off scott free while the Suns get punished for doing the same thing on an intentional foul by Horry just because a little shoving happened (although that was also by Horry). In this case, the rule and David Stern's interpretation of an uninterpretable rule reward a team for being thugs (Spurs) and punish a team for not being thugs (Suns).

Yes, I agree, but it didn't happen.

 

[CaptainInsano]

It is nice how Cheesebeef can concede that the suns aren't perfect and how some of the things the spurs do make sense and are ok in his book.

Let me guess though, the troll king probably didn't concede a single inch back to cheesebeef.

Funny how one of the troll kings commonly played cards has always been that suns fans say the suns are perfect and the spurs are completely horrid.

I know without even reading his posts (on ignore) that he didn't give the same courtesy back to Cheesebeef and talk about the flaws of his own team.

Be careful next time you play that card troll king..

 

[Evil Ash]

Actually the rule says there has to be an altercation (not a fight) and it's completely up to David Stern to interpret what an altercation is (Despite this being a completely uninterpretable rule according to Stern). Elson went up for a dunk and James Jones took out his legs and dumped him on his ass (although apparently unintentionally). Elson's on the ground and Duncan leaves the bench and takes 3 steps into the court, standing inside the 3pt line screaming at the refs and Bowen also comes that far into the court to pull him back. James Jones just turns and runs up the court after it happens. Elson gets up and starts chasing after James Jones and the ref jumps in the way to stop him or else there would've been a fight. This is all going on during live action and the Spurs aren't penalized at all despite having 7 players on the court.

The problem with the rule is that if James Jones sees Duncan & Bowen on the court and gets in Elson's face or lets Elson shove or punch him then Duncan & Bowen have to be suspended, but since he's a nice guy that didn't mean to hurt Elson then Duncan & Bowen get off scott free while the Suns get punished for doing the same thing on an intentional foul by Horry just because a little shoving happened (although that was also by Horry). In this case, the rule and David Stern's interpretation of an uninterpretable rule reward a team for being thugs (Spurs) and punish a team for not being thugs (Suns).

Thank you.