Bowen and Duncan suspended for game 5...

[white_chocolate_55]

.... is the words whinging D'antoni would like to hear the league announce.. but it's been rejected...

League Rejects Suns' Argument
15th May, 2007 - 11:36 pm
East Valley Tribune -
The NBA has rejected the Suns' bid to save Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw, or to perhaps remove Tim Duncan and Bruce Bowen from the Game 5 equation as well.

The Suns made sure that NBA decision-makers were aware that the Spurs’ Tim Duncan and Bruce Bowen left the bench in Game 4 of their Western Conference playoff series when teammate Francisco Elson dunked early in the third quarter and hung on the rim, only to have the Suns’ James Jones inadvertently undercut him as he headed up court.

According to the Suns, Duncan jumped off the bench and walked onto the court with Bowen following him to get him back on the bench.

This was different, NBA vice president Stu Jackson said. Duncan “should not have been on the court,” he said. But, “There was no altercation.”

 

[ducky_poo]

woah thats a big decision there

 

[WoobieZarz]

No altercation, but still "ok".....

 

[JZA]

complete bullshit the whole thing, the only person who should have any suspension is horry.

 

[nandalinnaung]

d'antoni's mind game didn't work then..

but i really don't want to see players suspended in play-offs time.. the game will be less intensity from really good players... or maybe things could get worse..

dunno..

 

[wolvesjr34]

I agree bullshit. Amare didn't do anything to anyone as he was pulled back by coaches.

Double standards.

 

[jimboiitmac]

I agree bullshit. Amare didn't do anything to anyone as he was pulled back by coaches.

Double standards.

rules are rules.

you are not allowed to leave the bench during an altercation, it doesn't matter what you do before or after you've left the bench, if you leave you get suspended.

 

[white_chocolate_55]

good rule that, and you'd think the suns players would know better.. plenty of bigger things to worry about than this, the game was over, they didn't need to intervene, d'antoni was going nuts for everyone..

 

[buyingstuffformikelee]

Man, that cost them today

 

[HBM]

Yep, in hindsight, it was a great tactical move by Horry.

 

[card_craze]

not really, if amare & diaw didn't lose their cool, it would only be bob horry being suspended

the rules in NBA are designed to prevent 'cheap' tactics like this... I still remember back when Shaq was with Lakers and some of their opponents employed hack-a-shaq tactic knowing he's a poor FT shooter - and the game became a farce. But that's what teams do, they will do ANYTHING within defined rules, to win a game.

 

[axeman23]

But here's another thing that makes it a bit more interesting: Stu Jackson says the reason Duncan and Bowen weren't suspended for leaving the bench was that there was because there was no "altercation" at the time. Well, I put it to you that at the moment Amare and Diaw left the bench, no altercation had started. By the time Bell and Horry got into it, Amare and Diaw were already well off the bench, and almost to Nash. So for them to have left the bench during an altercation, an altercation must include all flagrant fouls/technicals. So why aren't players charged with fighting fouls on every flagrant, since it's apparently an altercation?

 

[card_craze]

I'm not 100% certain about the rules, but AFAIK altercation can only happen when the ball is not in play (dead ball situation). By the time horry shoulder charged nash, the ball was out of bound. Which means it's not in play. At the time there was no altercation. But then raja bell came to horry and horry shoved him with his forearm - this is when the altercation started.

For duncan & bowen situation, both jones & elson had run to the other side and the play had started (no dead ball situation). No altercation. Referees didn't call a tech on jones either.

To make it simple, if referee blows the whistle to stop the play - that's a dead ball situation. That was the case with amare & diaw. The referee stopped the play, dead ball situation, then bell & horry went at each other (but bell didn't seem to start any physical contact, it was horry who shoved him with his forearm) - that was an altercation. If amare & diaw had kept their cool... when they saw what happened, they should turn to their bench. This way they are moving toward the bench, not leaving the bench.

So why aren't players charged with fighting fouls on every flagrant, since it's apparently an altercation?

Flagrant foul is a foul that is considered dangerous. But it is still, technically speaking, a foul. It's just very hard foul. If im not mistaken there are 2 types, flagrant 1 and flagrant 2, flagrant 2 involves mandatory suspension for minimum 1 game. That's what horry gets, 1 game for the flagrant, another for shoving bell with his forearm.

So flagrant foul does not immediately mean an altercation. Just like last year when stackhouse floored shaq, he tried to get up immediately and was going to have a go at stackhouse, but wade saw the whole thing and kept shaq cool (smart play on wade's part). Stackhouse was suspended for 1 game for the flagrant foul - but no fighting foul, as there was no altercation.

Bottomline is: as hard it is for a player to watch his teammate getting whacked on the floor, if he's on the bench, he is not supposed to leave the bench and step on the court. The idea is to keep players cool in the case of altercation happening, the league doesn't want all out brawl involving several players.

With duncan & bowen it is clear that they left the bench, but there's no rule saying players can't leave the bench when the ball is in play or in 'normal' situation... at that time play already started, I guess duncan & bowen were lucky.