On 17 May 2007 08:03:03 -0700, "Torrey M. Spears"
<nwophoenix@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 16, 7:54 pm, "Spencer R. Lower" <spen...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Being on the short end of the rule, I have to concede that it is a good
one,
>> and I hope the league continues to enforce zero tolerance. Popovich
was
>> prescient when he called Amare a young player. Amare, Diaw, and Jalen
will
>> never do it again. I'm impressed at the Spurs' staff immediately
getting in
>> front of their players to prevent them from leaving. All teams should
learn
>> to do this.
>
>it's not a good rule, because the intent behind the rule was not
>compromised.
>You can't turn human beings into robots and make them just sit there
>when an altercation like that happens.
Actually, you hire assistant coaches who immediately turn to the bench
and remind people that they better not go anywhere.
>Stoudemire and Diaw did nothing to exasurbate the situation, and did
>not warrant a suspension.
>Especially, when Stu and Stern have all these subjective rulings on
>flagrant fouls. Bowen knees Nash in the groin, Baron elbows Fisch in
>the face - these plays don't warrant a suspension???
>
>Come on. The NBA dropped the ball here, and have really exposed a
>glaring problem with their rules and rule enforcements.
>
>-- TMS
There are a few rules in pro s****ts that have automatic consequences.
1. Argue balls/strikes and you get ejected (MLB)
2. Leave the bench in an altercation and you get suspended a game
(NBA)
3. Bump into a ref and you get suspended (NFL)
If you complain about the consequences for any of these, you are a
whiner/homer who doesn't want to take responsibility for your (team's)
actions.
Peter
--
Re****ter: "Tracy, did you see the Mayweather- De La Hoya fight last
night?"
McGrady: "Nah, it was boring. I couldn't make it past the first round."
|
