Who believes Tim Donaghy?
Moderators: dms269, HMFFL, Jamaaliver
-
parson
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,316
- And1: 469
- Joined: May 02, 2001
Gee guys, I was talking about the league office, not isolated plays in unimportant games.
BUT, if you have to strain at gnats to try to prove your point, doesn't that kinda prove MY point, instead?
Ever heard of the exception that proves the rule?
BUT, if you have to strain at gnats to try to prove your point, doesn't that kinda prove MY point, instead?
Ever heard of the exception that proves the rule?
My mother told me, she said, "Elwood, to make it in this world you either have to be oh, so clever or oh, so pleasant." Well, for years I was clever; I recommend pleasant.
Elwood P. Dowd (Jimmy Stewart, in the film "Harvey")
Elwood P. Dowd (Jimmy Stewart, in the film "Harvey")
-
tontoz
- RealGM
- Posts: 20,219
- And1: 5,004
- Joined: Apr 11, 2005
parson wrote:Gee guys, I was talking about the league office, not isolated plays in unimportant games.
BUT, if you have to strain at gnats to try to prove your point, doesn't that kinda prove MY point, instead?
Ever heard of the exception that proves the rule?
The league office?
First of all Donaghy was a ref and he was in your thread title. Secondly the league office isn't in the habit of deciding games. That is the job of the players and the refs.
Why don't you give us all the examples of bad breaks we have gotten from the league office? And what are the good breaks from the league office that other teams are getting and we aren't?
-
parson
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,316
- And1: 469
- Joined: May 02, 2001
Sorry tontoz, I don't have time to debate small points today (I just wasted what time I had on killjoy).
My point is simply that there are teams that benefit from NBA decisions and we're not one of those teams. Some of those teams ROUTINELY benefit and we're definitely not one of those.
I don't care to argue whether or not we've ever received a fortunate bounce of the ball.
You don't REALLY want to ask that, do you? Let's not argue over points that you can easily answer for yourself.
My point is simply that there are teams that benefit from NBA decisions and we're not one of those teams. Some of those teams ROUTINELY benefit and we're definitely not one of those.
I don't care to argue whether or not we've ever received a fortunate bounce of the ball.
tontoz wrote:And what are the good breaks from the league office that other teams are getting and we aren't?
You don't REALLY want to ask that, do you? Let's not argue over points that you can easily answer for yourself.
My mother told me, she said, "Elwood, to make it in this world you either have to be oh, so clever or oh, so pleasant." Well, for years I was clever; I recommend pleasant.
Elwood P. Dowd (Jimmy Stewart, in the film "Harvey")
Elwood P. Dowd (Jimmy Stewart, in the film "Harvey")
-
HoopsGuru25
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,321
- And1: 3
- Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Marvin suspended game 1 of next year but Jason Kidd isn't.
The whole Miami replay incident. I agree the game probably should have been replayed(despite Shaq really smacking Marvin in the face and not getting a foul called in the 4th)because it was a scorers table incident but the league let Marion play with 0 fouls after replacing Shaq who had 5 fouls...but still didn't let Josh Smith play when he had fouled out in the original game. Not a big deal because it was a 50 second game but I could easily see a situation in which we could have lost because of that.
The whole Miami replay incident. I agree the game probably should have been replayed(despite Shaq really smacking Marvin in the face and not getting a foul called in the 4th)because it was a scorers table incident but the league let Marion play with 0 fouls after replacing Shaq who had 5 fouls...but still didn't let Josh Smith play when he had fouled out in the original game. Not a big deal because it was a 50 second game but I could easily see a situation in which we could have lost because of that.
-
tontoz
- RealGM
- Posts: 20,219
- And1: 5,004
- Joined: Apr 11, 2005
Marvin tackled a guy in the open court. he earned his suspension. Plus the game and the series was over.
As far as the Miami thing goes the scorers messed up and the trades left the teams with many of the original players gone. They didn't have a lot of choice but to let in the new players. Bibby played.
But i don't see how the other teams in the league are benefitting from the league office.
As far as the Miami thing goes the scorers messed up and the trades left the teams with many of the original players gone. They didn't have a lot of choice but to let in the new players. Bibby played.
But i don't see how the other teams in the league are benefitting from the league office.
-
HoopsGuru25
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,321
- And1: 3
- Joined: Apr 18, 2006
tontoz so you think Marving getting suspended but Kidd's flagrant WASN'T worth a suspension? No...so that's an example of another team benefiting from a ruling by the league office where the Hawks didn't.
The whole point of the replay was to start the game from the point where Shaq got fouled out. If you are going to let the new players play(Marion and Bibby)with 0 fouls then you should let Josh Smith come back in the game with 0 fouls. The fact that Miami's 2nd best player went from 5 to 0 fouls while our 2nd best player couldn't play is a HUGE advantage if that game went into another OT. The Heat clearly benefited from this decision by the league. They should have just played the game with the players left from December gamel which wasn't even a problem because this was before Miami shut Wade & company down.
The whole point of the replay was to start the game from the point where Shaq got fouled out. If you are going to let the new players play(Marion and Bibby)with 0 fouls then you should let Josh Smith come back in the game with 0 fouls. The fact that Miami's 2nd best player went from 5 to 0 fouls while our 2nd best player couldn't play is a HUGE advantage if that game went into another OT. The Heat clearly benefited from this decision by the league. They should have just played the game with the players left from December gamel which wasn't even a problem because this was before Miami shut Wade & company down.
-
tontoz
- RealGM
- Posts: 20,219
- And1: 5,004
- Joined: Apr 11, 2005
tontoz so you think Marving getting suspended but Kidd's flagrant WASN'T worth a suspension? No...so that's an example of another team benefiting from a ruling by the league office where the Hawks didn't.
it was a completely different situation. their series was still going on. ours was over. It is only logical that they would be less likely to suspend a player during a series instead of after it is over.
it isn't like we have a history of players getting suspended.
The Heat clearly benefited from this decision by the league.
They wound up the same way they started, with a L. I don't see how the league was intentionally favoring a last place team.
-
HoopsGuru25
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,321
- And1: 3
- Joined: Apr 18, 2006
tontoz..I'm not saying the league specifically did either incident to screw over the Hawks but both situations show the inconsistency of the league picking and choosing what to do in different situations. The fact that Marvin's happened in game 7 and Kidd's happened in game 4 doesn't make what Kidd did any less malicious and it doesn't make me feel any better about losing Marvin for a game while they don't lose Kidd.
Hell..I can think of a situation where the Hawks got the benefit of the doubt. Do you remember when Perkins and Marvin were on the court during the Zaza/KG scuffle and neither got suspended? Well how about 2007 when Stern was basically ****** on Dan Patrick after the Amare/Diaw suspensions for basically saying he should just ignore the rule that he had no problem ignoring the year after. It's just another example of inconsistency of the league office.
Hell..I can think of a situation where the Hawks got the benefit of the doubt. Do you remember when Perkins and Marvin were on the court during the Zaza/KG scuffle and neither got suspended? Well how about 2007 when Stern was basically ****** on Dan Patrick after the Amare/Diaw suspensions for basically saying he should just ignore the rule that he had no problem ignoring the year after. It's just another example of inconsistency of the league office.
-
tontoz
- RealGM
- Posts: 20,219
- And1: 5,004
- Joined: Apr 11, 2005
Hell..I can think of a situation where the Hawks got the benefit of the doubt. Do you remember when Perkins and Marvin were on the court during the Zaza/KG scuffle and neither got suspended? Well how about 2007 when Stern was basically ****** on Dan Patrick after the Amare/Diaw suspensions for basically saying he should just ignore the rule that he had no problem ignoring the year after. It's just another example of inconsistency of the league office.
Those two situations aren't remotely similar. Marvin and Perkins barely moved on that play. Amare and Diaw took several steps towards the altercation.
Parson dismisses the Toronto game as being insignificant. So what qualifies as significant?
-
HoopsGuru25
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,321
- And1: 3
- Joined: Apr 18, 2006
They are very similar. Suspending someone on the bench for stepping on the court during an altercation is supposed to be automatic regardless if you take one step on the court or take several steps on the court. That's why you saw assistant coaches making sure no players even stepped towards the court in numerous altercations in this years playoffs. The only reason this wasn't a big deal in the national media is because Marvin Williams and Kendrick Perkins are role players.
As for the Toronto game? I don't see how that's a league office decision(unless you are talking about the one in the 2006-2007 season). The ref was the one who started the clock early...not someone who works for the Hawks.
As for the Toronto game? I don't see how that's a league office decision(unless you are talking about the one in the 2006-2007 season). The ref was the one who started the clock early...not someone who works for the Hawks.
-
tontoz
- RealGM
- Posts: 20,219
- And1: 5,004
- Joined: Apr 11, 2005
HoopsGuru25 wrote:They are very similar. Suspending someone on the bench for stepping on the court during an altercation is supposed to be automatic regardless if you take one step on the court or take several steps on the court. That's why you saw assistant coaches making sure no players even stepped towards the court in numerous altercations in this years playoffs. The only reason this wasn't a big deal in the national media is because Marvin Williams and Kendrick Perkins are role players.
As for the Toronto game? I don't see how that's a league office decision(unless you are talking about the one in the 2006-2007 season). The ref was the one who started the clock early...not someone who works for the Hawks.
That isn't the rule. The rule is that if you leave the bench area it is an automatic suspension. Just because you step on the court doesn't mean it is an automatic suspension.
The reason i bring up the Toronto game is because parson said it was an unimportant game. that begs the question what he thinks important.