I wish Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw weren't suspended for Game 5 of the Western Conference semifinals against San Antonio.
All knotted up 2-2 after a Game 4 win, we had a situation where two great basketball teams could conceivably play in one of those Game 7 epics.
Not to be, I guess.
Not after Steve Nash was checked into the first row by Robert Horry. You know the story. Nash gets checked, Diaw and Stoudemire advance onto the court ... series over.
You can blame a handful of people. Blame Stoudemire and Diaw if you want. Technically, if those two just didn't approach the floor, or Horry, they wouldn't have been suspended for one game.
I don't blame them. It was a cheap, hard foul that looked worse than it actually was when Nash flopped into the scorer's table like he'd just been hit by Ray Lewis. Yes, it was a hard foul. But that was a great sell by the Canadian.
Phoenix's assistant coaches deserve some of the blame. Their main job, other then to get head coach Mike D'antonio coffee in the morning, is to make sure that in a potential brawl-like situation, that nobody (OK, the star players) leave the bench. They waited until Stoudemire reacted to react themselves.
But you can't blame David Stern for this one. The rule is incredibly clear - if you leave the bench area, you'll be suspended.
It's a weirdly worded rule, but it's not a secret. Everyone knows about it.
Stern followed the letter of the law, like he should have.
Like he had to.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Do you think that rule should atleast be looked at on a case by case basis? I really don't think it's fair to see the leader of your team get decked and expected to stay on the sidelines and just watch. Honestly, would David Stern just sit there on the bench if he were in that situation?
The rule is really pretty weak. And yeah, they should probably look at it. The thing is, though, looking at it at a case-by-case basis may make it even more complicated.
Whenever you have to take into account both intent and situation, there is an unknown factor and a bias, whether perceived or not.
Amare Stoudemire says he had no intention to get on the floor and start a fight. That might not be the truth. We don't know.
And when you start looking into the case-by-case basis, three people could look at it and see three different things. Who then gets the final say? And what makes his opinion the "correct" one?
In short, the rule as it is right now stinks, and although I think it will ultimately improve, it will just lead to different problems.
Post a Comment