Dems Da Rules

by

There is quite bit of talk this morning regarding the should-be ejections in two of last night’s games. What does Orlando have to do with San Antonio, you ask?

Our memories are short, but the 2007 Western Conference Semifinals provides context and then some for this discussion. You remember what happened, right? Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw left the bench after a hard foul-they made it as far as the court, but things never escalated beyond that. They were still suspended for violating the letter of law. You’re not allowed to leave the bench. “Rules are rules. Where would we be without rules? What would you have me do?” David Stern repeated in a PR mantra, which included a feisty dressing down of Dan Patrick on national radio.

I actually agreed with the commissioner. The rules were clear. It was unfortunate, but there it was. Not much to talk about, really. But I was in the minority. Everyone else was screaming bloody murder.

Here we are, only a couple years later, in some kind of weird bizarro universe scenario. The public is saying, “the rules, the rules.” And so far, at least, the league front office is silent. Should be interesting.

Ed. Note from Graydon: I wanted to mention that Robert Horry received a 2 game suspension for hip-checking Steve Nash. All the contact made by Horry was below the shoulders. Both Rondo and Howard’s fouls were issued directly to the head. No one every questioned the fact that Horry received a 2 game suspension. But the notion of a 2 game suspension for two higher profile players who committed more dangerous fouls than Horry’s has never even been mentioned.

  • TDzilla

    suspend Rondo and Dwight!

  • Carlos Romao

    I want to mention that Steve Nash should also have received a suspension for blatantly “selling” the foul, just like a supporting actor in a crap mafia movie shooting scene showing off his craft skills to the director. The hip-checking Horry gave on Steve Nash was not nearly as brutal as Nash showed. The problem for his “hey, there is an opportunity here to suspend Horry!” plan was the stupidity of Diaw and Stoudemire.

  • SpurredOn

    I too believed rules are rules and still do. The Suns’ lack of discipline was part of what always held them back, this 0ccasion just happened to be more off-court that on-court. I also had no problem with Horry’s suspension (though Nash acted the full drama queen) but still believe it would’ve been only one game had Diaw and Amare stayed on the bench. The Commish didn’t want his punishment equal with the guys who didn’t foul anyone.

    For this, I say yes to suspending Dwight. Rando? Not so sure. He likely should have been given a flagrant last night but the mistake by the refs should not cause him to miss the entire next game. Perhaps the officials should be disciplined for missing a blatant face foul. And Miller should be kicking himself for not taking one dribble. He could’ve dunked the ball after that.

  • GMT

    One of the youtube commenters pretty much summed up the Rondo foul:

    “If Rondo had made an attempt at the ball, we wouldn’t be discussing this. Rondo made no attempt to play the ball, and only played the opponent. This is a flagrant foul in every sport. Flagrant technical in basketball. Red card in soccer. Personal foul in football. Extended penalty in hockey. Ejection in baseball.

    Attempt to play the ball, simple foul. Foul the player and only the player, particularly in the face, flagrant foul. It’s in the NBA rulebook. Case closed.”

  • http://blog.chipp.com Chipp

    NBA says play ‘stands as called’ (espn). No flagrant foul.

    So, I guess ‘rules aren’t rules’ as far as hitting someone in the face, requiring stitches, with a closed fist and no chance at a play on the ball.

    And the fact is, retrograding the foul to a flagrant 1 only creates a fine for Rondo. No suspension. But it does send the message the rules need to be followed, by players and refs alike.

    Look for retribution by the Bulls in the next game. It appears now it’s okay to go head hunting in the lane.

    Another sad day for Stern, Stu and the NBA.

  • Brian Tung

    @48MoH: I disagreed with the commissioner then. Yes, rules are rules. Fine. Then these are *bad* rules. Any rule that frees referees (or the league) from the terrible torture of having to *think*, for crying out loud, is a bad rule. Are we saying that referees lack judgment to such a degree that we’re unwilling to let them exercise it?

    The letter of the law says that you have to suspend Amare and Diaw for a game. In my judgment, there’s no good reason to do so. They stopped almost immediately. They were a long away from causing trouble where they were. Who knows what their first impulse was, but whatever it was, they showed good *judgment* in suppressing it, and the league rewarded them by sitting them for a game.

    What would be so wrong about letting judgment determine what merits a suspension? One big thing that zero-tolerance rules are supposed to achieve-a reduction in the furor over penalties-failed signally to come about here. Not only was their still furor over the penalty to Amare and Diaw, but now there was also furor over how inflexible the rule is. If you want to send a strong message, can’t a fine do the same thing here? Fines allow a fine level of granularity, too; you can send a token $1,000 message that arguing with a referee more than seven times in the playoffs is a bad idea, or you can send a $250,000 message that you probably shouldn’t be snowboarding during the regular season.

    The Dwight Howard elbow is an instance where judgment and the letter of the law coincide. That’s worth a one-game suspension. Two would also have made sense, but I’m OK with it being one (in case anyone gives a darn what I think).

    The Rajon Rondo swipe (which, let’s face it, is only a play on the ball if you bleed Celtic green) is where it gets a little dicier. By the letter of the law, I think it’s an F1. My gut says, ehh, maybe not so much. Maybe I’m biased by my feeling that Brad Miller went up with all the conviction of a block of tofu. I’m OK with either an F1 or a regular shooting foul on that one. But I can also see why Suns fans are going to react to the league’s determination. Rationally, it hasn’t much to do with the Suns-Spurs incident: different rules, different situation. But rational or not, it’s not in the league’s best interests to have fans speculating too much about hidden or not-so-hidden biases in the executive office.

    @Chipp: I’m quite sure the officials will warn players on both sides not to go after heads. Watch for swift and sure reaction to any hard foul in the lane. Is it consistent? Perhaps, but it’ll be hard to prove. At any rate I suspect it’ll make good fodder in the Chicago papers.

  • Jordan

    The fact that Rondo did not get suspended, despite after the game pretty much admitting that he wasn’t making a play on the ball…disgusts me beyond words. The Celtics, known for their cheap shots since KG arrived, as well as their whining and bitching and faces of complete disbelief (that’s you specifically, K Perkins) should not have Rondo for the next game, and should have had to play a second overtime last night. Favoritism towards two “star” teams sullies everything great that has been happening in the playoffs thus far.

  • Hesham

    I know this is a bit late, but I just wanted to point out that Horry’s two game suspension was one game for the flagrant foul on Nash, and another game for striking Raja Bell above the shoulders.

  • Duaneofly

    One thing to remember Brian Tung is that after that season all the owners talked about the leaving the bench rule and none of them wanted to change it. Not even the Sun’s owner.
    I’m not saying its not a stupid rule, but you have to say enough is a enough and this is the rule. Let players leave the bench a little bit, and they will start doing it some more. Let that happen and it’ll happen more. Etc etc.

    Just the fact that Sarver didn’t want to change that rule should tell all us fans, who are biased towards either the Spurs, or Suns, or just anti-Stern, that its not a bad rule.

  • Todd

    Speaking of the Horry foul. Maybe enough time has elapsed to actually put the blame where it belongs.
    According to the rules, players leaving the bench “when there is an altercation” are automatically suspended.
    So when did it become an altercation? Not when Horry hip checked Nash. That is just a foul. Nash did not get up and engage Horry. In fact, Horry had turned his back and was walking away. If nothing more happens, Horry gets a 1 game suspension and Amare and Borris play in the next game.
    What actually happens next is that Bell engages the retreating Horry and turns it into an altercation. That was well after the original foul. Bell is a known hothead (see Kobe, choke hold) and rather than run to see if Nash was OK, he made a decsion that cost his team BIG.
    If Horry had been standing over Nash or threatening him in any other way, I could see a teammate trying to protect him. That was not the case here.

  • SpurredOn

    Todd - exellent point.

  • Brian Tung

    @Duaneofly: I don’t think there has to be a slippery slope here. There’s plenty of places where you can say things have to stop. One is the moment where injury or the danger thereof is imminent. I think we can all tell the difference between Amare Stoudamire taking two steps on one hand, and Kermit Washington getting a running start on the other-and that’s even before Kermit makes contact.

    In the NFL, you have this concept of motion unabated toward the quarterback, right? If you stop, you can get back behind the line of scrimmage, as long as you do so before the ball is snapped. But if you keep going toward the quarterback, even if the ball isn’t snapped, that’s a penalty. And that decision is made on the fly; surely the NBA could employ the same level of judgment with the benefit of hindsight and video replay.

    The fact that none of the owners wanted to change the rule proves little, given their history. Status Quo is King, and besides, this rule is finely crafted CYA. It’s right up the owners’ alley.