The NBA Playoffs Thread (non-Bulls)

[woodchip2153]

 

Hrm, Duncan and Bowen should have been suspended for this incident.

 

In a play that went entirely unnoticed until well after the game was over, both Duncan and Bowen actually left San Antonio's bench early in the second quarter after Francisco Elson and James Jones were entangled. Replays clearly show Duncan walking several steps onto the court as Elson and Jones appeared to be ready to get into it. Bowen then followed Duncan onto the floor, grabbed him and led him back to the bench. If the league does indeed follow the letter of the law, both Spurs players would also be suspended for Game 5.

 

Big, BIG difference between the two incidents. Diaw and Stoudamire (especially him) ran down the sideline to get close. Duncan basically stood up and took a step. And Bowen stepped out to pull Duncan back to the bench. The Duncan/Bowen thing was nothing.

 

Duncan and Bowen crossed the sidelines, just like Diaw and Stoudemire. The NBA said they were following the rule due to precedence and that it was black and white. This is pretty darn black and white to me.

 

The difference that I've heard is that the rule specifically states that you can't leave the bench area "during an altercation." The belief is that the league didn't consider this to be an altercation, therefore no punishment for Duncan or Bowen.

 

And Duncan took like 2 steps, which I wouldn't think would be considered to be leaving the bench area, too.

[jersey cubs fan]

And Duncan took like 2 steps, which I wouldn't think would be considered to be leaving the bench area, too.

 

He was well within the 3-point stripe, as far from the bench area as the Suns players.

[Guest]

 

Hrm, Duncan and Bowen should have been suspended for this incident.

 

In a play that went entirely unnoticed until well after the game was over, both Duncan and Bowen actually left San Antonio's bench early in the second quarter after Francisco Elson and James Jones were entangled. Replays clearly show Duncan walking several steps onto the court as Elson and Jones appeared to be ready to get into it. Bowen then followed Duncan onto the floor, grabbed him and led him back to the bench. If the league does indeed follow the letter of the law, both Spurs players would also be suspended for Game 5.

 

Big, BIG difference between the two incidents. Diaw and Stoudamire (especially him) ran down the sideline to get close. Duncan basically stood up and took a step. And Bowen stepped out to pull Duncan back to the bench. The Duncan/Bowen thing was nothing.

 

Duncan and Bowen crossed the sidelines, just like Diaw and Stoudemire. The NBA said they were following the rule due to precedence and that it was black and white. This is pretty darn black and white to me.

 

The difference that I've heard is that the rule specifically states that you can't leave the bench area "during an altercation." The belief is that the league didn't consider this to be an altercation, therefore no punishment for Duncan or Bowen.

 

And Duncan took like 2 steps, which I wouldn't think would be considered to be leaving the bench area, too.

 

It might not have been an "altercation" as Banedon says, but they certainly left the bench area by crossing onto the court.

 

The Suns countered by saying that Duncan and Bruce Bowen were guilty of a similar leaving-the-bench offense in Game 4's first half when San Antonio's Francisco Elson fell on the Suns' James Jones after a dunk. That play was also reviewed, but Jackson -- while conceding that Duncan "should not have been on the playing court" -- said that the league determined there was "no cause for the suspension rule" to be applied because the Elson-Jones tangle was not deemed to be an altercation.

 

Personally I think that was stupid. There was no other reason for Duncan to be on the court but to back up his teammate if something happened - which is the reason the rule was put in place.

 

Or, maybe the NBA could decide to review it on a case-by-case matter and realize that Diaw and Stoudemire shouldn't have been suspended either. Why was the Spurs matter open to interpretation but the Suns players were ruled by the letter of the law?

Edited May 16, 2007 by CaliforniaRaisin

[Banedon]

The difference that I've heard is that the rule specifically states that you can't leave the bench area "during an altercation." The belief is that the league didn't consider this to be an altercation, therefore no punishment for Duncan or Bowen.

 

And Duncan took like 2 steps, which I wouldn't think would be considered to be leaving the bench area, too.

 

It might not have been an "altercation" as Banedon says, but they certainly left the bench area by crossing onto the court.

 

Agreed. I don't think there's much doubt there.

[ConstableRabbit]

Anyone who is an ESPN insider:

 

Go to espn.com and here Dan Patrick's heated debate on air with David Stern regarding the suspensions. Stern's pretty rude and sounds like an absolute moron.

[soccer10k]

 

Hrm, Duncan and Bowen should have been suspended for this incident.

 

In a play that went entirely unnoticed until well after the game was over, both Duncan and Bowen actually left San Antonio's bench early in the second quarter after Francisco Elson and James Jones were entangled. Replays clearly show Duncan walking several steps onto the court as Elson and Jones appeared to be ready to get into it. Bowen then followed Duncan onto the floor, grabbed him and led him back to the bench. If the league does indeed follow the letter of the law, both Spurs players would also be suspended for Game 5.

 

Big, BIG difference between the two incidents. Diaw and Stoudamire (especially him) ran down the sideline to get close. Duncan basically stood up and took a step. And Bowen stepped out to pull Duncan back to the bench. The Duncan/Bowen thing was nothing.

 

Duncan and Bowen crossed the sidelines, just like Diaw and Stoudemire. The NBA said they were following the rule due to precedence and that it was black and white. This is pretty darn black and white to me.

 

The difference that I've heard is that the rule specifically states that you can't leave the bench area "during an altercation." The belief is that the league didn't consider this to be an altercation, therefore no punishment for Duncan or Bowen.

 

And Duncan took like 2 steps, which I wouldn't think would be considered to be leaving the bench area, too.

 

It might not have been an "altercation" as Banedon says, but they certainly left the bench area by crossing onto the court.

 

The Suns countered by saying that Duncan and Bruce Bowen were guilty of a similar leaving-the-bench offense in Game 4's first half when San Antonio's Francisco Elson fell on the Suns' James Jones after a dunk. That play was also reviewed, but Jackson -- while conceding that Duncan "should not have been on the playing court" -- said that the league determined there was "no cause for the suspension rule" to be applied because the Elson-Jones tangle was not deemed to be an altercation.

 

Personally I think that was stupid. There was no other reason for Duncan to be on the court but to back up his teammate if something happened - which is the reason the rule was put in place.

 

Or, maybe the NBA could decide to review it on a case-by-case matter and realize that Diaw and Stoudemire shouldn't have been suspended either. Why was the Spurs matter open to interpretation but the Suns players were ruled by the letter of the law?

 

Maybe because Duncan took two steps and didn't have to be physically restrained by anybody to prevent him from going further onto the court like Stoudamire and Diaw did. And Duncan didn't run up the sideline to try and get involved either.

[Guest]

 

Hrm, Duncan and Bowen should have been suspended for this incident.

 

In a play that went entirely unnoticed until well after the game was over, both Duncan and Bowen actually left San Antonio's bench early in the second quarter after Francisco Elson and James Jones were entangled. Replays clearly show Duncan walking several steps onto the court as Elson and Jones appeared to be ready to get into it. Bowen then followed Duncan onto the floor, grabbed him and led him back to the bench. If the league does indeed follow the letter of the law, both Spurs players would also be suspended for Game 5.

 

Big, BIG difference between the two incidents. Diaw and Stoudamire (especially him) ran down the sideline to get close. Duncan basically stood up and took a step. And Bowen stepped out to pull Duncan back to the bench. The Duncan/Bowen thing was nothing.

 

Duncan and Bowen crossed the sidelines, just like Diaw and Stoudemire. The NBA said they were following the rule due to precedence and that it was black and white. This is pretty darn black and white to me.

 

The difference that I've heard is that the rule specifically states that you can't leave the bench area "during an altercation." The belief is that the league didn't consider this to be an altercation, therefore no punishment for Duncan or Bowen.

 

And Duncan took like 2 steps, which I wouldn't think would be considered to be leaving the bench area, too.

 

It might not have been an "altercation" as Banedon says, but they certainly left the bench area by crossing onto the court.

 

The Suns countered by saying that Duncan and Bruce Bowen were guilty of a similar leaving-the-bench offense in Game 4's first half when San Antonio's Francisco Elson fell on the Suns' James Jones after a dunk. That play was also reviewed, but Jackson -- while conceding that Duncan "should not have been on the playing court" -- said that the league determined there was "no cause for the suspension rule" to be applied because the Elson-Jones tangle was not deemed to be an altercation.

 

Personally I think that was stupid. There was no other reason for Duncan to be on the court but to back up his teammate if something happened - which is the reason the rule was put in place.

 

Or, maybe the NBA could decide to review it on a case-by-case matter and realize that Diaw and Stoudemire shouldn't have been suspended either. Why was the Spurs matter open to interpretation but the Suns players were ruled by the letter of the law?

 

Maybe because Duncan took two steps and didn't have to be physically restrained by anybody to prevent him from going further onto the court like Stoudamire and Diaw did. And Duncan didn't run up the sideline to try and get involved either.

 

Bowen had to hold him back.

 

Duncan got further on the court than Stoudemire and Diaw combined.

 

A side note, Duncan was on the court during live game action, that shouldn't be acceptable either.

[Guest]

Anyone who is an ESPN insider:

 

Go to espn.com and here Dan Patrick's heated debate on air with David Stern regarding the suspensions. Stern's pretty rude and sounds like an absolute moron.

 

From what I've heard, Stern said something about the Spurs coaches got control of Duncan quicker than the Suns coaches and players were able to get control of Amare and Diaw. Am I right? If so, that's idiotic.

 

I don't get why Diaw and Stoudemire's suspension were black and white, cut and dry while Duncan and Bowen were open to interpretation.

[illiniguy]

Stern's act is tired. The whole holier than thou crap really needs to stop. Yes David, you make mistakes too.

[soccer10k]

 

Hrm, Duncan and Bowen should have been suspended for this incident.

 

In a play that went entirely unnoticed until well after the game was over, both Duncan and Bowen actually left San Antonio's bench early in the second quarter after Francisco Elson and James Jones were entangled. Replays clearly show Duncan walking several steps onto the court as Elson and Jones appeared to be ready to get into it. Bowen then followed Duncan onto the floor, grabbed him and led him back to the bench. If the league does indeed follow the letter of the law, both Spurs players would also be suspended for Game 5.

 

Big, BIG difference between the two incidents. Diaw and Stoudamire (especially him) ran down the sideline to get close. Duncan basically stood up and took a step. And Bowen stepped out to pull Duncan back to the bench. The Duncan/Bowen thing was nothing.

 

Duncan and Bowen crossed the sidelines, just like Diaw and Stoudemire. The NBA said they were following the rule due to precedence and that it was black and white. This is pretty darn black and white to me.

 

The difference that I've heard is that the rule specifically states that you can't leave the bench area "during an altercation." The belief is that the league didn't consider this to be an altercation, therefore no punishment for Duncan or Bowen.

 

And Duncan took like 2 steps, which I wouldn't think would be considered to be leaving the bench area, too.

 

It might not have been an "altercation" as Banedon says, but they certainly left the bench area by crossing onto the court.

 

The Suns countered by saying that Duncan and Bruce Bowen were guilty of a similar leaving-the-bench offense in Game 4's first half when San Antonio's Francisco Elson fell on the Suns' James Jones after a dunk. That play was also reviewed, but Jackson -- while conceding that Duncan "should not have been on the playing court" -- said that the league determined there was "no cause for the suspension rule" to be applied because the Elson-Jones tangle was not deemed to be an altercation.

 

Personally I think that was stupid. There was no other reason for Duncan to be on the court but to back up his teammate if something happened - which is the reason the rule was put in place.

 

Or, maybe the NBA could decide to review it on a case-by-case matter and realize that Diaw and Stoudemire shouldn't have been suspended either. Why was the Spurs matter open to interpretation but the Suns players were ruled by the letter of the law?

 

Maybe because Duncan took two steps and didn't have to be physically restrained by anybody to prevent him from going further onto the court like Stoudamire and Diaw did. And Duncan didn't run up the sideline to try and get involved either.

 

Bowen had to hold him back.

 

Duncan got further on the court than Stoudemire and Diaw combined.

 

A side note, Duncan was on the court during live game action, that shouldn't be acceptable either.

 

Bowen didn't have to hold Duncan back. Duncan was standing where he was for a couple seconds before Bowen helped him back to the bench. Big difference.

[Derwood]

If I were Nash, I would just kidney punch whoever was guarding me right at the opening tip of the next game. Seriously, can one guy get the crap beat out of him more? Busted head/nose, knee to the bag, hockey check into the ad scroll. It's like the West Coast version of Kirk Hinrich vs. the Pistons

[soccer10k]

I will say that the rule should be looked at and changed in the offseason. But in this case, the NBA had no choice but to levy the suspensions against Diaw and Stoudamire because of what the rule says. It sucks for the Suns but it's the rule. Believe me, I know what the Suns are feeling. I had to deal with the Tuck Rule. At least the Suns have three games left in the series. Like I said, the rule will be changed in the offseason.

[soccer10k]

If I were Nash, I would just kidney punch whoever was guarding me right at the opening tip of the next game. Seriously, can one guy get the crap beat out of him more? Busted head/nose, knee to the bag, hockey check into the ad scroll. It's like the West Coast version of Kirk Hinrich vs. the Pistons

 

The busted nose was an accident.

[Derwood]

If I were Nash, I would just kidney punch whoever was guarding me right at the opening tip of the next game. Seriously, can one guy get the crap beat out of him more? Busted head/nose, knee to the bag, hockey check into the ad scroll. It's like the West Coast version of Kirk Hinrich vs. the Pistons

 

The busted nose was an accident.

 

i know, but it's a cumulative thing

[CubColtPacer]

This isn't the first time that this has happened in a big series-that's why I'm not sure the rule will be changed. I was trying to remember when this happened to the Pacers-when it did, I remember thinking it was absolutely ridiculous. I finally found it-in 1998, the Pacers were playing the Bulls in the ECF. It was game 4, and there was some shoving going on. Rose stood up, took 1 step, and immediately turned around and sat right back down. He was suspended for game 5, which the Pacers lost, and the Pacers lost the series in 7 games. The NBA didn't seem to care about changing their rules then, so I don't see any reason why they would know.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Pretty nifty how TNT was able to recreate the Bulls game from last night and manage to CGI the Nets and Cavs players to make it look like their game 5.

[Guest]

Uh oh, LeBron hurt.

[Derwood]

oh man, how sweet would it be if the Nets upset the Cavs and the Bulls pulled off the miracle?

 

oh wait, the Bulls can't win in NJ. nevermind

[Flames24Rulz]

Wow, the Suns have massively choked.

[BigSlick]

oh man, how sweet would it be if the Nets upset the Cavs and the Bulls pulled off the miracle?

 

oh wait, the Bulls can't win in NJ. nevermind

 

Wouldn't we be the higher seed (or at least have the better record, which is all that matters), and thus have home court?

[jaydee]

Wow, the Suns have massively choked.

 

not really. they shouldn't have won this game. they are overachieving just to make it close. sooner or later the spurs were gonna take over or at least make it very tense

[Guest]

Wow, the Suns have massively choked.

 

not really. they shouldn't have won this game. they are overachieving just to make it close. sooner or later the spurs were gonna take over or at least make it very tense

 

They didn't have the depth to handle this game, you can't really say this is a choke job. The Spurs come back was inevitable.

[Guest]

That was the best look you could find, Nash?

[Flames24Rulz]

Wow, the Suns have massively choked.

 

not really. they shouldn't have won this game. they are overachieving just to make it close. sooner or later the spurs were gonna take over or at least make it very tense

 

Well, they were up by 7 halfway through the 4th. I know they don't have the depth, but you can't blow a lead like that at home.

[BigSlick]

Wow, the Suns have massively choked.

 

not really. they shouldn't have won this game. they are overachieving just to make it close. sooner or later the spurs were gonna take over or at least make it very tense

 

Well, they were up by 7 halfway through the 4th. I know they don't have the depth, but you can't blow a lead like that at home.

 

They kinda got screwed on the suspensions situation. Doesn't excuse the choking, but, damn, they really did.