I'm not familiar with all that went on in that game other than Horry
throwing his hip into Nash and a couple players, including Amare
Stoudamire, coming off the bench to go after Horry. So I'm not
considering this in the full context of what else was going on in the
game. I saw the replay of the foul over and over and over and
over . . . it was like watching CNN the day Anna Nicole Smith
died . . . but I'm not familiar with the premeditation.

The main thing is that a couple people came off the Phoenix bench. I
don't blame Stern for being damn concerned about that. The NBA does
crack down on fighting, yet, because of a couple of brawls that
really got out of hand over the last few years, they've actually
gotten castigated for goonery more than the NHL has. Having
Stern/stern penalties, and enforcing those penalties, is a way to
keep those brawls from getting out of hand.

So what is Stern supposed to do about the fact that the Phoenix
player who screwed up is better than the San Antonio player who
screwed up? It's the responsibility of the players to control their
actions. And if it's a player who is really good and whom their team
depends on, then he better take that responsibility even more
seriously. It's like in 1998 when McGwire was on his home-run run
and got thrown out of the game by umpire Sam Holbrook, who was
villified by everyone for denying the fans the chance to see
McGwire. If McGwire was this hot an item (and he was), didn't he
feel a responsibility to not scream Fuck You in an umpire's face? If
Amare Stoudamire is a key player to the Suns (and he is), doesn't he
understand he has a responsibility to not bolt onto the court as he
did?

I'm not talking about the crap the NHL used to let Dave Schultz get
away with--pick a fight with anyone and go off the ice for an equal
amount of time, an advantage to the Flyers because no matter who else
went off, it was a player better than Dave Schultz. The NBA has been
good about cracking down on this kind of crap and keeping it from
becoming the NHL. And I like handing down the suspensions at the
time an action happens, even if it's during the playoffs. It's too
bad it can have such an impact, but blame the players involved for
that. I'll take this kind of action over the total mishandling by
baseball with the Roger Clemens suspension for his actions during the
playoffs in 1990. They didn't even have him suspended at the
beginning of the 1991 season because he appealed the suspension.
Huh? They had an entire off-season to deal with that.

As for your "good of the game" statement, all you do is remind me how
Bowie Kuhn often invoked that phrase to justify some idiotic
actions. "For the good of the game" is right up there
with "politically correct" in phrases I have great disdain for.

Stew


--- In mnsports@yahoogroups.com, "Holst, Alan R" <holstar@...> wrote:
>
> Be a leader instead of making a non-decision that any low-level
> by-the-book functionary could have made. He could have acted like a
> commissioner and said that - for the good of the game - it would be
> wrong to reward foul play by the Spurs and that the two Suns would
> instead be suspended for one game during the 2007-2008 regular
season.
> (And then suspended Robert Horry for one month, without pay.) Too
much
> like a commissioner? OK, he could have ruled that the Duncan move
onto
> the court earlier in the game was also an altercation and suspended
him
> too. Too Solomonic? OK, then here's the decision he certainly
could
> have made. He could have ruled that there was no altercation with
Horry
> and Nash - absolutely within his power since there is no clearcut
> definition of what constitutes an altercation in the NBA
rulebook. How
> many playoff games have hard fouls and players jawing at each other?
> Except that Horry's foul was absolutely premeditated - for which
Stern
> REWARDED his team - this was a helluva lot closer to that than it
was to
> Pistons-Pacers. Yeah, it was a flagrant foul. But were any punches
> thrown? Did anyone get assessed a foul for fighting? Did anyone
> interact even verbally with any fans? So how is that an
altercation any
> more than Duncan's moment IF NOBODY ACTUALLY FOUGHT? Sure there
would
> be some spin doctoring in that ruling. But is it MORE honest to
pretend
> that justice was served, or that the fans were served, or that
future
> on-court violence was made LESS likely, by suspending the Suns and
> ruining the playoffs? How the hell was that good for the game?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: mnsports@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mnsports@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of stewthornley
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 8:30 PM
> To: mnsports@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [mnsports] Re: zebras blow it again
>
>
>
> --- In mnsports@yahoogroups.com <mailto:mnsports%
40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "Holst, Alan R" <holstar@> wrote:
> >
> > Like much of the officiating this season, and David Stern's petty
> bureaucrat non-leadership with the Suns' suspension, this was
pathetic.
>
> I'm not going to argue about your issues with officiating, but
what, in
> your opinion, should Stern have done in the Suns-Spurs series
regarding
> that situation?
>
> Stew
>