ImageImageImage

2005 Suns vs 2007 Suns

Moderators: bwgood77, Qwigglez, lilfishi22

The Diesel
Veteran
Posts: 2,711
And1: 0
Joined: Aug 07, 2005

Re: 2005 Suns vs 2007 Suns 

Post#21 » by The Diesel » Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:50 am

There was no altercation whatsoever when Duncan and Bowen left the bench. Stu Jackson already explained why Duncan wasn't suspended.
garrick
Head Coach
Posts: 7,334
And1: 4,054
Joined: Dec 02, 2006
     

Re: 2005 Suns vs 2007 Suns 

Post#22 » by garrick » Sun Jul 26, 2009 11:21 am

That leaving the bench rule should be reviewed by the league, I'd say if punches are thrown then it should count as a suspension but if it's just a staredown and some pushing then not.
nevetsov
Head Coach
Posts: 6,026
And1: 1,709
Joined: Jan 11, 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:
 

Re: 2005 Suns vs 2007 Suns 

Post#23 » by nevetsov » Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:16 pm

Diesel, that is just my point - there is nothing that defines the parameters required for an altercation. At the end of the day, it is still up to the discretion of Stern, Stu Jackson and company to impose penalties based on how they choose to interpret what constitutes an altercation.

Is it 'intention' that creates an altercation? Physical contact? The sequence of events that follow the incident?

Reviewing both incidents, I cannot see how leaving the bench for one incident should be treated any differently than the other.

Other than because Stu Jackson, speaking on behalf of David Stern, says so...
nevetsov
Head Coach
Posts: 6,026
And1: 1,709
Joined: Jan 11, 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:
 

Re: 2005 Suns vs 2007 Suns 

Post#24 » by nevetsov » Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:33 pm

Say you go and punch Tastic in the face, and this incites him to go burn down your house. The honorable judge Jackson rules that this is justified under the letter of the law because this was a legitimate response to your altercation.

He then is pissed, as he would be, because he has no house. He chooses to shoot you in the shoulder, and in retaliation you go and burn HIS house down. Now in everyone's eyes this seems entirely justified under the predetermined 'letter of the law'; however Judge Jackson rules that you unfairly burned down his house because, as he was standing a distance away from you when he shot you, it doesn't constitute an 'altercation'.

Thus, you have to go and build Tastic a new house. With a completely busted up shoulder too, because he's injured you of course.

You'd have to question the judge's motivation, as there would be no reasonability for such a decision.
User avatar
rsavaj
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 24,863
And1: 2,767
Joined: May 09, 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

Re: 2005 Suns vs 2007 Suns 

Post#25 » by rsavaj » Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:38 pm

That "altercation" thing is absolutely ridiculous. If they needed an altercation then we should have just sent Burke out there to create one.

Return to Phoenix Suns