OMG I can't stand the Miami Heat and all the BS that surrounds them

[MaoTosiFanClub]

i blame that entire thing on DA. He just never had that team mentally prepared to deal with the Spurs tactics in that series. The team took on the personality of it's head coach and exploded just like he had been doing all series on the sidelines.

Here. Go back and look at DA's demeanor after the hip check. He exploded and ran around like a child who got his favorite toy taken away. Of course his fellow coaches and players couldn't restrain themselves.

I can't Mike D'Antoni. I guess it was partially his small ball experiment that made us good, but it was everything else about his coaching that always prevented us from being great. I also don't forget that DA refusing to play Kurt Thomas until way late in Game 1 which caused us getting absolutely murdered on the boards and giving away home court advantage.

 

[AzStevenCal]

Maybe, but that hip check of Nash into the bench was a brutal play by Horry. Maybe Stern should have looked at the totality of the situation... one team garnering an unfair advantage in a series on a dirty play that was caused by the offending team. At least Stern could have staggered the suspensions with Amare and Diaw. The offending team should not benefit no matter what the rules say. There are always exceptions to a rule.

It was a brutal play and what made it so was that it wasn't a basketball play in any way, shape or form. It was a cheap shot after the game had been decided. I have always maintained that Stern could have stepped in and tossed a little justice our way. And I'll always believe that had we been the Lakers or the Celtics, the penalty would have been handled differently. But, still, when all is said and done, Amare and Diaw had no business leaving the court. Even a casual fan knows how wrong that is.

Steve

 

[Budden]

Maybe, but that hip check of Nash into the bench was a brutal play by Horry. Maybe Stern should have looked at the totality of the situation... one team garnering an unfair advantage in a series on a dirty play that was caused by the offending team. At least Stern could have staggered the suspensions with Amare and Diaw. The offending team should not benefit no matter what the rules say. There are always exceptions to a rule.

No, there aren't. That's what makes them rules.

It's really quite simple. If a fight breaks out, no players from either team are allowed to step onto the court. It was a very dirty play by Robert Horry, but who cares? If Horry's hip check was slightly less dirty, would you believe the Suns should've been less allowed to leave the bench?

Some people believe that all you need to win a championship is more Kurt Thomas and less Mike D'Antoni. But the truth is it takes focus, discipline, skill, and a whole lot more. The Suns actually got a great break when Horry got himself suspended for 2 games, but they weren't good enough to take advantage of it. Instead, Amar'e and Doris turned an advantage into their own suspensions.

 

[elindholm]

No, there aren't. That's what makes them rules.

It's really quite simple. If a fight breaks out, no players from either team are allowed to step onto the court.

The problem is that rule didn't say "fight," it said "incident." What's an "incident"? Whether or not players coming onto the court is an "incident" is in the eye of the beholder. The league decided that it was an "incident" when Stoudemire and Diaw came onto the court, but not an "incident" when Duncan did. They drew the line in a reasonable place, but they could also have drawn it anywhere else -- they had full discretion to determine what was an "incident" and what wasn't.

For the league to claim that their hands were forced by the rule was simply false. The rule was deliberately given vague wording so that the league could always do what it wanted.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

Some people believe that all you need to win a championship is more Kurt Thomas and less Mike D'Antoni. But the truth is it takes focus, discipline, skill, and a whole lot more. The Suns actually got a great break when Horry got himself suspended for 2 games, but they weren't good enough to take advantage of it. Instead, Amar'e and Doris turned an advantage into their own suspensions.

I didn't 100% say that. I am pretty convinced though that even with the suspensions had DA played more of Thomas in Game 1 that we would have hosted a Game 7 that series at US Airways. I agree with your premise though in that when you drop a Game 1 at home in a seven game series you have to look in the mirror first before casting blame on suspensions or bad luck.

 

[HooverDam]

The problem is that rule didn't say "fight," it said "incident." What's an "incident"? Whether or not players coming onto the court is an "incident" is in the eye of the beholder. The league decided that it was an "incident" when Stoudemire and Diaw came onto the court, but not an "incident" when Duncan did. They drew the line in a reasonable place, but they could also have drawn it anywhere else -- they had full discretion to determine what was an "incident" and what wasn't.

For the league to claim that their hands were forced by the rule was simply false. The rule was deliberately given vague wording so that the league could always do what it wanted.

This times one million. If the league was going to be hard asses and be so literal and dumb with the rules, Duncan should've been suspended too for coming onto the court in the 1st half.

I still feel that was the best Suns team in the Nash era and those suspensions likely cost them a title.

 

[Cheesebeef]

This times one million. If the league was going to be hard asses and be so literal and dumb with the rules, Duncan should've been suspended too for coming onto the court in the 1st half.

this is ludicrous you guys. There was a FIGHT that happened on the court and Amare and Diaw rushed out toward it. You're acting like there was even a question as to what happened with Amare and Diaw, that it was up to interpretation. there was a fight, there were punches thrown and shoving and Amare definitely charged toward it. what was even "incident" where Duncan barely crossed the bench line? there wasn't one.

we were stupid and the Spurs baited us into an explosion. that's really all there is to it.

 

[HooverDam]

this is ludicrous you guys. There was a FIGHT that happened on the court and Amare and Diaw rushed out toward it. You're acting like there was even a question as to what happened with Amare and Diaw, that it was up to interpretation. there was a fight, there were punches thrown and shoving and Amare definitely charged toward it. what was even "incident" where Duncan barely crossed the bench line? there wasn't one.

we were stupid and the Spurs baited us into an explosion. that's really all there is to it.

No, sorry you're wrong.

The rule says an ALTERCATION not a fight. The dictionary defines that as "a heated or angry dispute, noisy argument or controversy." It lists synonyms like quarrel, disagreement, clash, squabble, tiff.

In the first half of that game (2nd quarter I believe) Duncan was on the bench. A shouting match broke out during a stoppage of play and players began getting in each others faces and a fight nearly started. Duncan came several feet onto the court yelling at Suns players.

Look, I don't think anyone should've been suspended. But once Stern said they were going to go by the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law, you had to suspend Duncan too. Diaw and Amare didn't hurt anyone, they took a few reps and stepped back. Duncan did the same, it was just in a less hectic point of the game.

A yelling match is absolutely and "altercation", so by the letter of the law, Duncan should've been suspended.

 

[Cheesebeef]

No, sorry you're wrong.

The rule says an ALTERCATION not a fight. The dictionary defines that as "a heated or angry dispute, noisy argument or controversy." It lists synonyms like quarrel, disagreement, clash, squabble, tiff.

In the first half of that game (2nd quarter I believe) Duncan was on the bench. A shouting match broke out during a stoppage of play and players began getting in each others faces and a fight nearly started. Duncan came several feet onto the court yelling at Suns players.

Look, I don't think anyone should've been suspended. But once Stern said they were going to go by the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law, you had to suspend Duncan too. Diaw and Amare didn't hurt anyone, they took a few reps and stepped back. Duncan did the same, it was just in a less hectic point of the game.

A yelling match is absolutely and "altercation", so by the letter of the law, Duncan should've been suspended.

sorry man...I just don't buy that players yelling at each other...as they're RUNNING AWAY from each other is an altercation. There was no stoppage in play in the play you're talking about.

my bad...there was a stoppage in play, but no one was yelling at each other. The Spurs guy was running down the court and no one was jostling with each other in any way shape or form.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6Sq0uuaMHY

 

[Brian in Mesa]

The Heat have already won the title, according to LeBron's shoes

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/e...eady-won-the-title-according-to-lebrons-shoes

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Brian in Mesa]

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[sunsfan88]

Nike made those shoes not LeBron. He had nothing to do with it other than the fact that they labeled it after him.

 

[Mainstreet]

Please, just make this series go away.

 

[Chaplin]

sorry man...I just don't buy that players yelling at each other...as they're RUNNING AWAY from each other is an altercation. There was no stoppage in play in the play you're talking about.

my bad...there was a stoppage in play, but no one was yelling at each other. The Spurs guy was running down the court and no one was jostling with each other in any way shape or form.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6Sq0uuaMHY

Doesn't matter. The intent was exactly the same with why Duncan went onto the court and why Amare and Diaw did. All 3 did it to support or defend a teammate. Clearly against the rules.

 

[chickenhead]

I'm but again...there was a large scale altercation the very next year in the Atlanta-Boston series, and neither Perkins nor Marvin Williams got suspended despite coming off the bench (while Garnett was busy shoving a ref).

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...oves-stabs-and-shoots-a-ref-avoids-suspension

I'm not saying the league was trying to screw the Suns (especially in favor of the Spurs). And I'm not even saying they were consciously trying to keep the Boston gravy train going in 2008. But seriously, this stuff is why fans think the league is fixed. The Celtics altercation happened in a game Atlanta won to tie the series 2-2. Imagine if Boston is down Perkins and possibly Garnett, Atlanta wins game 5 and can close out in game 6 (which they did win)? That's a disaster for Stern: the Celtics are out in the first round, and the Lakers end up playing Atlanta, Cleveland, Orlando, or Detroit in the finals. Maybe they can make some hay with LeBron, but they were banking on Boston-LA.

Some consistency would be nice, but instead we get an inconsistency that never seems to be detrimental to the teams that already have the advantages in terms of revenue, mystique, and sponsorship opportunities. If Perkins had been suspended, I wouldn't feel better about Amare/Diaw, but I wouldn't be typing this for the 100th time, either.

 

[elindholm]

I'm but again...there was a large scale altercation the very next year in the Atlanta-Boston series, and neither Perkins nor Marvin Williams got suspended despite coming off the bench (while Garnett was busy shoving a ref).

I remember that. My interpretation has always been that Stern learned from the mistake he made with the Suns. In hindsight, he realized that his office had used its determination of what was or was not an "altercation" to dictate the outcome of a crucial playoff series, and he figured out -- too late for the Suns, unfortunately -- that that wasn't good for the league.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Doesn't matter. The intent was exactly the same with why Duncan went onto the court and why Amare and Diaw did. All 3 did it to support or defend a teammate. Clearly against the rules.

sorry. not buying. there's nothing in the rule that you can't support a teammate in the event of a non-altercation. Maybe a T for stepping on the court, but if there's no altercation, which there just flatly wasn't, you can't surmise intent for to join an altercation...which didn't exist.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I'm but again...there was a large scale altercation the very next year in the Atlanta-Boston series, and neither Perkins nor Marvin Williams got suspended despite coming off the bench (while Garnett was busy shoving a ref).

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...oves-stabs-and-shoots-a-ref-avoids-suspension

I'm not saying the league was trying to screw the Suns (especially in favor of the Spurs). And I'm not even saying they were consciously trying to keep the Boston gravy train going in 2008. But seriously, this stuff is why fans think the league is fixed. The Celtics altercation happened in a game Atlanta won to tie the series 2-2. Imagine if Boston is down Perkins and possibly Garnett, Atlanta wins game 5 and can close out in game 6 (which they did win)? That's a disaster for Stern: the Celtics are out in the first round, and the Lakers end up playing Atlanta, Cleveland, Orlando, or Detroit in the finals. Maybe they can make some hay with LeBron, but they were banking on Boston-LA.

Some consistency would be nice, but instead we get an inconsistency that never seems to be detrimental to the teams that already have the advantages in terms of revenue, mystique, and sponsorship opportunities. If Perkins had been suspended, I wouldn't feel better about Amare/Diaw, but I wouldn't be typing this for the 100th time, either.

here's the thing. I DON'T think the league was trying to screw the Suns...the Spurs are a death knell for ratings...and proved that in the Finals. But I DO think Stern saw dollar signs in his eyes with a possible Lakers-Celtics series and pretty consciously decided to let them off the hook.

 

[Mainstreet]

I'm but again...there was a large scale altercation the very next year in the Atlanta-Boston series, and neither Perkins nor Marvin Williams got suspended despite coming off the bench (while Garnett was busy shoving a ref).

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...oves-stabs-and-shoots-a-ref-avoids-suspension

I'm not saying the league was trying to screw the Suns (especially in favor of the Spurs). And I'm not even saying they were consciously trying to keep the Boston gravy train going in 2008. But seriously, this stuff is why fans think the league is fixed. The Celtics altercation happened in a game Atlanta won to tie the series 2-2. Imagine if Boston is down Perkins and possibly Garnett, Atlanta wins game 5 and can close out in game 6 (which they did win)? That's a disaster for Stern: the Celtics are out in the first round, and the Lakers end up playing Atlanta, Cleveland, Orlando, or Detroit in the finals. Maybe they can make some hay with LeBron, but they were banking on Boston-LA.

Some consistency would be nice, but instead we get an inconsistency that never seems to be detrimental to the teams that already have the advantages in terms of revenue, mystique, and sponsorship opportunities. If Perkins had been suspended, I wouldn't feel better about Amare/Diaw, but I wouldn't be typing this for the 100th time, either.

I totally agree. Even Jerry Colangelo could not talk any sense to Stern about the suspensions of Diaw and Amare. Then Stern changes his stance the next season. It seems rules are interpreted differently for the privileged or at his whim. So much for rules being rigid.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I totally agree. Even Jerry Colangelo could not talk any sense to Stern about the suspensions of Diaw and Amare. Then Stern changes his stance the next season. It seems rules are interpreted differently for the privileged or at his whim. So much for rules being rigid.

if Stern hadn't COMPLETELY submarined the Knicks chances of moving on to the ECF back in 1997, I'd agree with you, but he destroyed that team with suspensions after PJ Brown from the Heat body slammed Charlie Ward and started a huge altercation with the Heat down 3-1 in the series.

you really think Stern wasn't wetting his pants to have a Knicks-Chicago ECF with Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Ewing, Starks, Allen Houston, Larry Johnson? That was back when the Bulls were winning 70 games and the Knicks were VERY GOOD.

Amare definitely deserved that suspension because he's an idiot and blew his top. Diaw's was questionable.

 

[chickenhead]

And Perkins and Williams should have been suspended as well. But I agree that Stern would not have railroaded the Knicks if he could have helped it.

But I still wonder why something like this is a suspension.

http://www.nba.com/2012/news/01/25/lopez-suspended/index.html

While something like this (photo) is not.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nba/2004379898_nbaplayoffs29.html

Is it because Lopez is showing "conduct unbecoming" after the play, while Garnett escapes because...why? Because the ref grabbed him during a brawl, as he said later? So you can shove a ref in the heat of the moment, but you can't step onto the court in the heat of the moment...

Anyway, it's fan-tastic.

 

[Mainstreet]

And Perkins and Williams should have been suspended as well. But I agree that Stern would not have railroaded the Knicks if he could have helped it.

But I still wonder why something like this is a suspension.

http://www.nba.com/2012/news/01/25/lopez-suspended/index.html

While something like this (photo) is not.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nba/2004379898_nbaplayoffs29.html

Is it because Lopez is showing "conduct unbecoming" after the play, while Garnett escapes because...why? Because the ref grabbed him during a brawl, as he said later? So you can shove a ref in the heat of the moment, but you can't step onto the court in the heat of the moment...

Anyway, it's fan-tastic.

It's called being Kevin Garnett.

The NBA game is not called consistently, the regular season versus the playoffs, the superstars versus the regular players. It all comes down from the top. I watch the NFL and I think the referees do a good job win or lose.

 

[chickenhead]

Oh, I understand. And I agree the NFL has a better handle on it--although the NFL relies a bit more on parity and "any given Sunday" for its popularity, whereas the NBA is star-driven. As we're told, anyway: maybe I'm an anomaly, but I'm not necessarily more interested in a Miami-LA matchup, say, than a Utah-Indiana matchup. But I'm probably just a contrarian, especially when it comes to secondary markets and cursed teams.