The NBA debacle

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

It's interesting to contrast how NASCAR and the NBA handle their rules situations. NASCAR seem to make up their rules on the fly, and mete them out in an arbitrary fashion. The NBA on the other hand, seems to apply the rule the same without taking into any account the subjectivity of the individual situation.
 
 This all has a whiff of bigotry, if you ask me. Dr. Doom would probably be more qualified to comment though.

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  It's interesting to contrast how NASCAR and the NBA handle their rules situations. NASCAR seem to make up their rules on the fly, and mete them out in an arbitrary fashion. The NBA on the other hand, seems to apply the rule the same without taking into any account the subjectivity of the individual situation.

I believe that has been labeled the "Smackdown Effect."

[bnyced0]

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
  if anyone has last night's game on DVR/tivo, go to about the 12:20/12:21 mark and watch the fans, you'll see a suns fan giving the nazi salute and screaming seig heil ... it's honestly one of the most bizarre things i've ever seen
 
 i'm actually thinking about writing a law review article on traditional theories of punishment and their application in professional sports leagues, but beyond that i think that the NBA simply had to suspend amare and boris
 
 that's just the way they enforce their rules (and especially this rule) ... if they weren't suspended there would be just as much of an uproar that they're favoring the suns ... if the NBA wants to completely overhaul either the rule or their enforcement policy, then fine, but the way they operate they can't just make an ad hoc change

99% of the time I would agree with you, and even if this was the regular season I would agree with you. But in this case I think the commissioner could have and should have used his discretion.
 
   These aren't constitutional laws, but rather rules that a committee of owners pass during the off season.  I believe the intent of this particular rule is to avoid altercations from escalating, keeping players in the bench area when something flares up is a laudable goal.  But I think it has to take intent into consideration and I don't think anyone thought that those players straying a few too many feet into the prohibited area were going to actually join the fray.  
 
 However, the rule IS clear and they (assistant coaches, other players, etc) understood they were "close" to breaking it, but when the outcome of strict rule enforcement is so disportionate to the supposed infraction and so prejudices one team who weren't the instigators of the initial action there needs to be some discretion, and the commissioner has an obligation to do what's best for the league, and he failed miserably.  
 
 I also disagree that there would have been an outcry if he wouldn't have followed this rule to the letter of the law, I think team members, fans, etc. of both teams would have thought a just outcome would have been to not have suspended the suns players, and fined Horry.  I also think if he wanted to make "an adhoc change" by consulting with the rules and committee, suggesting an exception, and taking the position that in the name of fairness and the best interest of the game that they don't follow the letter of the rule that it could have been done.  He doesn't have to wait for congress to be in session, for a conference committee to reconcile the bill, and the president to sign it, he can be judge and jury and conjole the just result, it's a failure of leadership and a shame.  
 
 I'm just focusing on the fact that these aren't laws but rules that I believe have enough flexibility if the commissioner wanted to show leadership to make an exception.  He can easily be defended on "legal" grounds, but his conscience can't possibly be at ease nor should it be.

[HoyaSaxa03]

you're completely missing the whole point of the regulation ... fighting used to be a huge issue in the NBA, and this rule was meant to be a zero-tolerance approach towards ending fighting in the league, and it did a great job ... the NBA determined that they wanted to stamp out fighting, and to do that they decided to impose this ZERO-TOLERANCE rule ... the only way this rule works is if it's enforced the same to everyone
 
 look at it this way, you're saying that "the outcome of strict rule enforcement is so disportionate to the supposed infraction and so prejudices one team who weren't the instigators of the initial action there needs to be some discretion" ... the NBA has determined that because they want to end fighting, that leaving the bench is JUST AS BIG OF AN ISSUE as starting the fight and will be addressed on a zero-tolerance basis ... therefore, in their eyes, the "outcome of strict rule enforcement" is NOT disproportionate to the supposed infraction, because they take leaving the bench SERIOUSLY
 
 i'm sick of people saying that this is the "legal" conclusion while the "correct and sensible" conclusion is that they shouldn't have been suspended, and that the "lawyers" are fucking this all up ... there is plenty of room for equity, negotiation, etc in the law, it's just that the NBA has always enforced this rule with a zero tolerance approach and they shouldn't do any different at this point
 
 if they want to change their approach and decide that leaving the bench isn't as big of a deal to them now, then go ahead and do so, but the way the rule is written and currently enforced, stern had no other option
 
 all of you people whining about this really just don't understand how seriously the NBA takes leaving the bench area during an altercation
 
 by the way, it's obvious that amare was leaving the bench to join in the fray, why the hell else would he be running up the sideline?

[Mobius]

The rules of basketball are clear, but they are interpretted on almost every single play of a game.  Famously, travelling and palming are common, though rarely called.  There is contact on many plays near the basket and its a judgment call whether a foul should be called or whether to "let them play."
 
 The Stoudemire/Diaw situation needed to be judged the same way.  Horry's foul was dirty and if the net result of him checking Nash into the scorer's table is a positive for the Spurs - then they got it absolutely wrong.  
 
 I didn't mind the fact that I was staying up until 1 am watching hoops . . . but this really pissed me off.  It cut at the heart of competition - if you neuter the players and force them not to have passion (instead of caring about a wronged teammate you must stay where you are like a good boy) the result is just more soulless going the motions hoops (like most of the regular season).
 
 Of course, the net result of a star missing a key game happens all the time in World Cup when guys get a 2nd yellow card and have to miss the next game - often on some ticky tack bs call - so its not unique.

[bnyced0]

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
  you're completely missing the whole point of the regulation ... fighting used to be a huge issue in the NBA, and this rule was meant to be a zero-tolerance approach towards ending fighting in the league, and it did a great job ... the NBA determined that they wanted to stamp out fighting, and to do that they decided to impose this ZERO-TOLERANCE rule ... the only way this rule works is if it's enforced the same to everyone
 
 look at it this way, you're saying that "the outcome of strict rule enforcement is so disportionate to the supposed infraction and so prejudices one team who weren't the instigators of the initial action there needs to be some discretion" ... the NBA has determined that because they want to end fighting, that leaving the bench is JUST AS BIG OF AN ISSUE as starting the fight and will be addressed on a zero-tolerance basis ... therefore, in their eyes, the "outcome of strict rule enforcement" is NOT disproportionate to the supposed infraction, because they take leaving the bench SERIOUSLY
 
 i'm sick of people saying that this is the "legal" conclusion while the "correct and sensible" conclusion is that they shouldn't have been suspended, and that the "lawyers" are fucking this all up ... there is plenty of room for equity, negotiation, etc in the law, it's just that the NBA has always enforced this rule with a zero tolerance approach and they shouldn't do any different at this point
 
 if they want to change their approach and decide that leaving the bench isn't as big of a deal to them now, then go ahead and do so, but the way the rule is written and currently enforced, stern had no other option
 
 all of you people whining about this really just don't understand how seriously the NBA takes leaving the bench area during an altercation
 
 by the way, it's obvious that amare was leaving the bench to join in the fray, why the hell else would he be running up the sideline?

Believe me I'm not anti-lawyer or legal, and perhaps I didn't make my point clear instead of missing it.  I'm saying that he did what the rule states, and he can't be faulted for that.  What I suggest he could have done was see that this situation is unique, and did what was necessary to make sure that the right thing was done in this instance.  Such as requesting that the rule committee meet to discuss this instance and possibly amend the rule at this time.  I understand why the rule was created, and I understand the importance of consistency and rule enforcement in general, but sometimes shit happens that requires people to act and set precedent, not simply follow it.  If you believe there was no opportunity for flexibility and that as the commissioner he has no obiligation to look out for the best interest of his league, or that this outcome was the best interest for his league then I guess we just disagree.

[sonickteam2]

Originally posted by bnyced0:
   

Originally posted by le sonick:
  steve nash is the man!

You're such a homer!  But he is damn good. [/b]

sorry     i have no useful knowledge of the NBA whatsoever, but wanted to contribute to the thread.

[HoyaSaxa03]

Originally posted by Mobius:
 Horry's foul was dirty and if the net result of him checking Nash into the scorer's table is a positive for the Spurs - then they got it absolutely wrong.

see, this is where you guys are just not getting it ... the NBA sees leaving the bench during an altercation as a BIG DEAL and the "net result" of a fight and people leaving the bench, according to the NBA, should be that the bench-leavers are suspended and the fighters are suspended
 
 stern followed the NBA's policy and got it ABSOLUTELY RIGHT because they punished someone for leaving the bench ... this isn't some subjective thing that's up for argument, by following both the letter and the spirit of the regulation, stern DID THE RIGHT THING
 
 now, you may say that you don't think it's that big of a deal to leave the bench during an altercation ... and i'd probably agree with you ... but it's just not what the NBA currently believes ... they'll probably go back and tweak this rule in the offseason, but until they do so, their policy is that bench-leavers should be punished just like the fighters, and to address this situation any differently than others would have simply been unfair
 
 btw, i'm neither a suns nor spurs fan and i would have obviously preferred to see nobody suspended for this, but i just understand where the NBA is coming from, unlike all these incredulous sports talk radio callers

[HoyaSaxa03]

Originally posted by bnyced0:
 What I suggest he could have done was see that this situation is unique, and did what was necessary to make sure that the right thing was done in this instance.

the whole purpose of this rule is to serve as a preventative measure against fighting, not really to punish the player for his specific actions ... therefore, WHENEVER it's applied it will seem like an unfair decision
 
 any kind of deterrence rule or regulation like this will ALWAYS seem unfair when specifically applied, but when discussing such rules you have to look at the overarching GOAL of the rule, not it's specfic application

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
  you're completely missing the whole point of the regulation ... fighting used to be a huge issue in the NBA, and this rule was meant to be a zero-tolerance approach towards ending fighting in the league, and it did a great job ...  

That's a stretch.  One guy punched somebody -  Kermit Washington - and the league panicked.  And in years since, fights have still happened at the same pace they were happening before.  It wasn't a huge problem, it was a huge scare.
 
 Does the rule make players think twice before leaving the bench?  Yes.  Does it stop fights?  Perhaps.  But was fighting a huge problem in the NBA?  Never.
 
 Their real problem is cheap shots and dirty play.  And they have never adequately addressed that.
 
 Did the Commish get the ruling right?  Yes.  Should the rule be that strict?  Not a chance.

[HoyaSaxa03]

Originally posted by vansmack:
  That's a stretch.  One guy punched somebody -  Kermit Washington - and the league panicked.  And in years since, fights have still happened at the same pace they were happening before.  It wasn't a huge problem, it was a huge scare.

fine ... as you know, it's all about perception ... the NBA perceived that they had a big fighting problem, and this is how they addressed the issue ... it still doesn't change the calculus
 
 and i agree with you, the rule shouldn't be this strict, but the NBA would disagree (until the owners get together and decide otherwise)

[Mobius]

see, this is where you guys are just not getting it ... the NBA sees leaving the bench during an altercation as a BIG DEAL and the "net result" of a fight and people leaving the bench, according to the NBA, should be that the bench-leavers are suspended and the fighters are suspended
 [/QB]

Stern may have gotten it "technically" right, but my point was that from a justice standpoint and a competitive standpoint it was wrong - and that during a game rules are interpretted on almost every play and this rule should be handled the same way.  Horry harmed Nash.  Stoudemire and Diaw harmed no one (Horry deserved retaliation in my opinion).  They essentially flinched, realized they were in the wrong and went no further.  And it turned the whole series.  Yes, its problem with the rule itself, but it was an outrageous result for every fan who invested themselves in following this series.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

See, this is where you're not getting it. Turning a sporting event into a law school classroom.
 
 

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
   

Originally posted by Mobius:
 Horry's foul was dirty and if the net result of him checking Nash into the scorer's table is a positive for the Spurs - then they got it absolutely wrong.

see, this is where you guys are just not getting it ... the NBA sees leaving the bench during an altercation as a BIG DEAL and the "net result" of a fight and people leaving the bench, according to the NBA, should be that the bench-leavers are suspended and the fighters are suspended
 
 stern followed the NBA's policy and got it ABSOLUTELY RIGHT because they punished someone for leaving the bench ... this isn't some subjective thing that's up for argument, by following both the letter and the spirit of the regulation, stern DID THE RIGHT THING
 
 now, you may say that you don't think it's that big of a deal to leave the bench during an altercation ... and i'd probably agree with you ... but it's just not what the NBA currently believes ... they'll probably go back and tweak this rule in the offseason, but until they do so, their policy is that bench-leavers should be punished just like the fighters, and to address this situation any differently than others would have simply been unfair
 
 btw, i'm neither a suns nor spurs fan and i would have obviously preferred to see nobody suspended for this, but i just understand where the NBA is coming from, unlike all these incredulous sports talk radio callers [/b]

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
  the rule shouldn't be this strict, but the NBA would disagree (until the owners get together and decide otherwise)

I disagree with your assertion on the NBA's thoughts as well.  I've yet to hear one person from the NBA say the rule is perfect and doesn't need to be changed.  Everybody in the NBA thinks this application of the rule is too strict (and I don't count Popovich because if it was applied to his players in the same manner he would be on the side of every other coach, owner, NBA executive).
 
 You are correct in arguing that Stern did what he had to do, but it's a stretch to say that by virtue of it's application Stern doesn't feel it's too strict.  Even he said [prarphrasing] "look, I just apply the rules as they are given to me.  If you want the rule changed, take with up with the owners (they set the rules).  I'll even take it to the owners this offseason."
 
 Don't confuse it's proper application with the thought that the rule isn't too strict in the NBA's eyes.  Stern has his hands tied, that's all.

[bnyced0]

Originally posted by Hoya Paranoia:
   

Originally posted by bnyced0:
 What I suggest he could have done was see that this situation is unique, and did what was necessary to make sure that the right thing was done in this instance.

the whole purpose of this rule is to serve as a preventative measure against fighting, not really to punish the player for his specific actions ... therefore, WHENEVER it's applied it will seem like an unfair decision
 
 any kind of deterrence rule or regulation like this will ALWAYS seem unfair when specifically applied, but when discussing such rules you have to look at the overarching GOAL of the rule, not it's specfic application [/b]

Now I'm afraid you're missing my point, which ISN'T about the rule, whether it was applied accurately or not, or even if it's a good rule, or accomplishes it's goal.  My point is that I believe he has the power to look at this specific situation and act in a way that I believe would have been in the best interest of everyone concerned, and that would have been to do whatever was necessary (ie convene the rules committee, etc). get this "right." You seem hung up and frustrated on everyone not seeing that he had no choice, or that the rule was followed correctly.  That's NOT the argument I'm making, nor do I think it's the spirit of the argument others are making.  Are we talking past one another here?