This is where I'm going to post some comments to my letter from Stern, et al., re-explaining the decision to suspend Amare and Boris. A FULL WEEK after the suspensions four days after the Suns were eliminated, Stern and Jackson decided to explain themselves yet again. Why? Why did the email go out on the day of the Draft Lottery?
I'm just going to pick apart some lines. Sort of a brainstorm before the more focused and articulate response comes out.
I have to put something in out of order, because I don't know where it goes, but its bugging me. Someone (maybe more) in that national media said that the suspension really hurt because Amare and Boris were primarily responsible for guarding Duncan. Well, maybe in Game 1. Please, don't try to do us any favors; get your facts straight so I'm not lumped in with your un-educated opinion.
To paraphrase The Bard once again, "Methinks Stern doth protest too much." This is where the fun begins:
"Thank you for taking the time to contact us about the suspensions of Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw of the Phoenix Suns. Although we probably will not change your mind, we wanted to share with you the rationale for the rule and the facts requiring our decision."
Translation: "Let me patronize a little more. I seem to still keep getting heat for this thing and you babies should just listen."
"Although we probably will not change your mind ..."
Condescending is not a strong enough adjective here. They know we just can't get it through out little heads and wanted to take the opportunity to point that out again.
"The Rule
Rule 12, Section VII(c) of the NBA Official Playing Rules says: 'During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $50,000.'"·
Okay? But where are the terms "altercation" and "immeidate vicinity" defined. A wrote one about this already. How can you have a "bright line" rule that creates "strict liability" if the terms are not defined? Come on, Dave, you're supposed to be a layer.
"The purpose of the rule is to prevent an on-court altercation from getting worse by making sure that players on the bench do not become involved -- whether or not they intend to."
So, intention is not a part of the decision? Didn't Stern talk about Duncan's "intent," "body language," and "facial expressions" on the now-infamous Dan Patrick Interview. Dave, so we're sure, which part should I be writing down? That which you email me or the words that you utter?
"The fewer the number of players on the court, the less likely it is that an altercation will escalate and the more likely it is that the referees and coaches will be able to restore order without serious injury to players or to fans."
This is why he makes the big bucks.
· The rule doesn't look to the intent of the players leaving the bench and it does not distinguish among the curious, the peacemakers or those seeking to become involved in the altercation.
Tim Duncan and Bruce Bowen?
"The reason for this is simple -- the players on the court have no idea what a player's intent is when he leaves the bench and in the heat of the moment they may well assume the player is approaching as an aggressor. Thus, the language of the rule is firm: 'violators will be suspended.'"
I'm not going to re-hash this one as everyone has already linked to all of the other exceptions that have been made. Did all those guys in the Knicks-Nuggets "altercation" that came off the bench get suspended? I dont' know.
"· This is not a rule that can be enforced on a case-by-case basis"
Then, why have you done so in the past? And with Bowen and Duncan? It gets a lot better below when he starts talking about the intentions of Amare and Boris. Buckle up.
" -- if a player were able to leave the bench and later argue his case and avoid a suspension, there would be more players leaving the bench."
Do you really think so? Perhaps it is true. Of course, most employees are allowed some sort of hearing before being punished. I may be able to live with this comment, though.
"And because the rule has been applied consistently over the years, bench-clearing incidents have been rare."
It has not been applied consistently.
"Overall, the leaving-the-bench rule, together with others, has succeeded in dramatically reducing the amount of fighting in the league and all but eliminated serious injury during fights that do occur."
It was in place before the Brawl at Auburn Hills, right? Yeah, it was a great deterrent there.
See, this is the problem with making statements based on anecdotal evidence. That's about as logical as saying, "There's a large rock in my front yard and I've never been attacked by a bear. Do you want to purchase my bear-protecting rock so as to safeguard your family?"
In order to prove this statement, you need, at a minimum, the following:
1. An analysis of the frequency of fights in which the benches clear (or are largely emptied) both before and after the rule.
2. An analysis of the seriousness of the injuries occuring during bench-clearing brawls before and after the rule.
3. Evidence, probably based on player interviews, examining why they did not join into on-court altercations. Step 3, of course, only happens if the empirical data from 1 and 2 supports your hypothesis.
"· Teams and players are reminded of the rule before every regular season and again before the playoffs. Teams try to ensure that their players comply with the rule by both reminding them of it and assigning assistant coaches the job of keeping players in the vicinity of the bench when incidents do occur."
As soon as the coaches could, they turned around and tried to keep everyone back. They did a good job. Again, though, please give a definition of "vicinity" that is less vague than "between 1 and 25 feet from your seat."
"· As soon as Steve Nash was fouled, both Amare and Boris ran toward the scene, each ending up over 20 feet away from the Suns' bench and near the altercation."
So, every hard foul is automatically an "altercation"? That's interesting.
In any event, "immediately" after the foul, nothing was going on. Nash was in a heap and Horry was walking away like a boxer after a knock-out blow.
"Despite what many have said, they didn't 'walk' a few feet from the bench and they didn't 'wander' onto the court."
Are you saying they ran over to Nash? Maybe they did, I can't remember right now.
"· No one knew what the players' intentions were when they left the bench and they could very easily have gotten involved in the altercation had it spilled over in their direction."
I think we can agree this happened very near the Suns' bench. If they had stood up and the "altercation" spilled over toward them, would they have been in trouble.
At this point, you may want to stop me and say, "That's quite a few 'what-ifs' and we're not dealing in hypotheticals here." I'd be forced to agree with you, but I'd also point out that you should have easy, very defensible answers if it's such a clear-cut, bright-line rule.
"Zero tolerance," right? That means all you have to do is robotically answer and not make any decisions. Decision-making without using judgment is always what leads to the robots taking over humankind in the sci-fi movies.
"And although you could say they were having a "natural" reaction to seeing their teammate go down, assistant coaches are supposed to stop bench players from acting on those kinds of reactions,"
Again, Duncan in the second period. Look, you applied "judgment" and "discretion" to that situation but not to this one.
Oh, wait a second. I reminded everyone to buckle up, right? What "reactions" are the coaches supposed to stop? The "natural" ones?
Stu Jackson said that he's never seen anyone "trying to check in like Amare did." Why is that relevant, Stu?
Answer: Because you guys made it relevant by dancing around the Duncan-in-the-second-period question.
"which was the case with the 17 other players (active and inactive) who were on the benches at the time and did not leave."
Why is this relevant? Who cares what they were thinking, right? Who cares about their "intent," right? Are you trying to point out that not everyone gets up every time? Yeah, we all know it can be done. I suppose these two guys are just too stupid to follow along with what everyone else does.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Didn't We Already Get Over This?
I was about ready to let this go. In fact, I had let it go. Now, however, days after the fact, the NBA decides to poor salt in the (closed) wound with this pathetic, pandering palaver. I'm going to leave it here for a while. I'm going to be busy for a couple of days, but I will get back around to this soon. Just because it's all too easy, I'm going to post something picking this thing about. I'm also going to write an open letter to the NBA in response. I'll probably post that letter, too.
For Pete's sake! Who's having trouble getting past this?
"Methinks Stern doth protest too much."
Here is what was in my email inbox today:
Thank you for taking the time to contact us about the suspensions of Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw of the Phoenix Suns. Although we probably will not change your mind, we wanted to share with you the rationale for the rule and the facts requiring our decision.
The Rule
Rule 12, Section VII(c) of the NBA Official Playing Rules says: "During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $50,000."
· The purpose of the rule is to prevent an on-court altercation from getting worse by making sure that players on the bench do not become involved -- whether or not they intend to. The fewer the number of players on the court, the less likely it is that an altercation will escalate and the more likely it is that the referees and coaches will be able to restore order without serious injury to players or to fans.
· The rule doesn't look to the intent of the players leaving the bench and it does not distinguish among the curious, the peacemakers or those seeking to become involved in the altercation. The reason for this is simple -- the players on the court have no idea what a player's intent is when he leaves the bench and in the heat of the moment they may well assume the player is approaching as an aggressor. Thus, the language of the rule is firm: "violators will be suspended."
· This is not a rule that can be enforced on a case-by-case basis -- if a player were able to leave the bench and later argue his case and avoid a suspension, there would be more players leaving the bench. And because the rule has been applied consistently over the years, bench-clearing incidents have been rare. Overall, the leaving-the-bench rule, together with others, has succeeded in dramatically reducing the amount of fighting in the league and all but eliminated serious injury during fights that do occur.
· Teams and players are reminded of the rule before every regular season and again before the playoffs. Teams try to ensure that their players comply with the rule by both reminding them of it and assigning assistant coaches the job of keeping players in the vicinity of the bench when incidents do occur.
The Facts Requiring the Stoudemire and Diaw Suspensions
· As soon as Steve Nash was fouled, both Amare and Boris ran toward the scene, each ending up over 20 feet away from the Suns' bench and near the altercation. Despite what many have said, they didn't "walk" a few feet from the bench and they didn't "wander" onto the court. In fact, they engaged in the very conduct the rule was meant to stop.
· No one knew what the players' intentions were when they left the bench and they could very easily have gotten involved in the altercation had it spilled over in their direction. And although you could say they were having a "natural" reaction to seeing their teammate go down, assistant coaches are supposed to stop bench players from acting on those kinds of reactions, which was the case with the 17 other players (active and inactive) who were on the benches at the time and did not leave.
As with all NBA rules, this one can be changed by a vote of the Board of Governors. Rules are typically changed following a recommendation from the Competition Committee, which will discuss the leaving-the-bench rule (along with several other items) at its next meeting. At this time, we don’t have a better rule to recommend.
One thing everyone can agree on: this was an extremely unfortunate circumstance. We never want to suspend players for any game, much less a playoff game, but for all the reasons described above, the facts dictated the application of the rule.
For Pete's sake! Who's having trouble getting past this?
"Methinks Stern doth protest too much."
Here is what was in my email inbox today:
Thank you for taking the time to contact us about the suspensions of Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw of the Phoenix Suns. Although we probably will not change your mind, we wanted to share with you the rationale for the rule and the facts requiring our decision.
The Rule
Rule 12, Section VII(c) of the NBA Official Playing Rules says: "During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $50,000."
· The purpose of the rule is to prevent an on-court altercation from getting worse by making sure that players on the bench do not become involved -- whether or not they intend to. The fewer the number of players on the court, the less likely it is that an altercation will escalate and the more likely it is that the referees and coaches will be able to restore order without serious injury to players or to fans.
· The rule doesn't look to the intent of the players leaving the bench and it does not distinguish among the curious, the peacemakers or those seeking to become involved in the altercation. The reason for this is simple -- the players on the court have no idea what a player's intent is when he leaves the bench and in the heat of the moment they may well assume the player is approaching as an aggressor. Thus, the language of the rule is firm: "violators will be suspended."
· This is not a rule that can be enforced on a case-by-case basis -- if a player were able to leave the bench and later argue his case and avoid a suspension, there would be more players leaving the bench. And because the rule has been applied consistently over the years, bench-clearing incidents have been rare. Overall, the leaving-the-bench rule, together with others, has succeeded in dramatically reducing the amount of fighting in the league and all but eliminated serious injury during fights that do occur.
· Teams and players are reminded of the rule before every regular season and again before the playoffs. Teams try to ensure that their players comply with the rule by both reminding them of it and assigning assistant coaches the job of keeping players in the vicinity of the bench when incidents do occur.
The Facts Requiring the Stoudemire and Diaw Suspensions
· As soon as Steve Nash was fouled, both Amare and Boris ran toward the scene, each ending up over 20 feet away from the Suns' bench and near the altercation. Despite what many have said, they didn't "walk" a few feet from the bench and they didn't "wander" onto the court. In fact, they engaged in the very conduct the rule was meant to stop.
· No one knew what the players' intentions were when they left the bench and they could very easily have gotten involved in the altercation had it spilled over in their direction. And although you could say they were having a "natural" reaction to seeing their teammate go down, assistant coaches are supposed to stop bench players from acting on those kinds of reactions, which was the case with the 17 other players (active and inactive) who were on the benches at the time and did not leave.
As with all NBA rules, this one can be changed by a vote of the Board of Governors. Rules are typically changed following a recommendation from the Competition Committee, which will discuss the leaving-the-bench rule (along with several other items) at its next meeting. At this time, we don’t have a better rule to recommend.
One thing everyone can agree on: this was an extremely unfortunate circumstance. We never want to suspend players for any game, much less a playoff game, but for all the reasons described above, the facts dictated the application of the rule.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Requiem for an NBA Season
Before I start, I want to put everything in a little perspective …
The universe is something like 15 to 20 billion years old (that’s nine zeroes). The planet earth is about 4 billion years old. The apes that eventually became humans appeared over 2 million years ago (the dinosaurs died out over 60 million years before that), and “thinking man” is less than 50,000 years old.
One day in high school this hit me like a ton of bricks. Rather than become a depressed Cadmus existentialist, I scorned Sisyphus and decided those two had missed the point. On a very cosmic level, we will never succeed, but in transcendent moments, we do have some high points.
Watching Steve Nash during the post-game for Game 6, I wondered, “How many times do you have to lose before you succeed?” I look around at myself and, while congratulating myself on how far I’ve come, I consider all that I haven’t accomplished and all that I won’t accomplish.
The human spirit strives for perfection, but humans never attain it. Sometimes, we get glimpses of perfection and success, but these are fleeting moments. For some reason, though, we keep going back for more.
You can be nihilistic about it, only focusing on the failure to get that rock up the hill, or we can embrace the ride. If you’re moving through life with blinders on, you’ll certainly miss quite a bit. I encourage you (and me) to ditch the atheistic existentialist view and embrace the transcendental view.
Fitting, too, that this occurred over the Feast of the Ascension. That time between Easter and Pentecost when the Apostles didn’t know what to do. Huddled and hiding in an apartment. Waiting, wondering and scared. Thinking to themselves, “What the hell are we going to do now?” Remember when you got married, changed jobs or had a child? What the hell? Right?
I can hear D’Antoni saying, “Look, this is fun. We’re trying our best and enjoying the ride.” He’s not the best tactical coach ever, but I appreciate him for this strategic attitude. Too bad basketball’s not more like football where the head coach isn’t much more than a glorified cheerleader – a strategist – and the assistants do all of the nuts-and-bolts work for the team.
Or, as Homer Simpson would say, “Feel that pounding in your chest and that tingling in your left arm?”
How can you do anything but smile? This is fun. This is exciting. This is what life is about.
Pentecost for the disciples of the Suns is coming on Tuesday. If the Suns are truly cursed, then Atlanta – against the odds – gets the number 3 pick. If not, we’ll get some divine intervention. If it goes well, maybe the pre-game introductions should have a flame over Steve Nash's head instead of the flames coming from his fingers.
Either way, though, we’ll be back for the ride. We had some good times this year. Barbosa’s killer 3 in Chicago. The OT battles with New Jersey and Dallas. Game 5 in Phoenix was the most fun sporting event I’ve ever attended.
Damn, we had a good season. Let’s go back for more.
The universe is something like 15 to 20 billion years old (that’s nine zeroes). The planet earth is about 4 billion years old. The apes that eventually became humans appeared over 2 million years ago (the dinosaurs died out over 60 million years before that), and “thinking man” is less than 50,000 years old.
One day in high school this hit me like a ton of bricks. Rather than become a depressed Cadmus existentialist, I scorned Sisyphus and decided those two had missed the point. On a very cosmic level, we will never succeed, but in transcendent moments, we do have some high points.
Watching Steve Nash during the post-game for Game 6, I wondered, “How many times do you have to lose before you succeed?” I look around at myself and, while congratulating myself on how far I’ve come, I consider all that I haven’t accomplished and all that I won’t accomplish.
The human spirit strives for perfection, but humans never attain it. Sometimes, we get glimpses of perfection and success, but these are fleeting moments. For some reason, though, we keep going back for more.
You can be nihilistic about it, only focusing on the failure to get that rock up the hill, or we can embrace the ride. If you’re moving through life with blinders on, you’ll certainly miss quite a bit. I encourage you (and me) to ditch the atheistic existentialist view and embrace the transcendental view.
Fitting, too, that this occurred over the Feast of the Ascension. That time between Easter and Pentecost when the Apostles didn’t know what to do. Huddled and hiding in an apartment. Waiting, wondering and scared. Thinking to themselves, “What the hell are we going to do now?” Remember when you got married, changed jobs or had a child? What the hell? Right?
I can hear D’Antoni saying, “Look, this is fun. We’re trying our best and enjoying the ride.” He’s not the best tactical coach ever, but I appreciate him for this strategic attitude. Too bad basketball’s not more like football where the head coach isn’t much more than a glorified cheerleader – a strategist – and the assistants do all of the nuts-and-bolts work for the team.
Or, as Homer Simpson would say, “Feel that pounding in your chest and that tingling in your left arm?”
How can you do anything but smile? This is fun. This is exciting. This is what life is about.
Pentecost for the disciples of the Suns is coming on Tuesday. If the Suns are truly cursed, then Atlanta – against the odds – gets the number 3 pick. If not, we’ll get some divine intervention. If it goes well, maybe the pre-game introductions should have a flame over Steve Nash's head instead of the flames coming from his fingers.
Either way, though, we’ll be back for the ride. We had some good times this year. Barbosa’s killer 3 in Chicago. The OT battles with New Jersey and Dallas. Game 5 in Phoenix was the most fun sporting event I’ve ever attended.
Damn, we had a good season. Let’s go back for more.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Today is a Good Day to Die
I actually thought about using that title in a pre-Game 5 blog, but I was just too amped to think straight. I haven't been that wired for a sporting match since I was actually on a competitive team. I really thought we were going to get blown out and keep marching, much like the final assualt in Glory.
Today, I feel so useless. At Game 5, at least I felt like I added something as a loud fan. Before going further, I've got to say that was the best sporting event I've ever been at. It was kind of like a high school basketball game; every rebound, loose ball, shot and pass had the crowd cheering.
In high school, we went to a playoff game down in Tucson our senior year to cheer on the team (we lost that game, too). I was able to get down there, though. It was loud and hostile and fun. Paul Bertolini got escorted out of that game by an armed security guard for swearing at the other team's players (we sat behind their bench). At least I felt we could do something for the team.
Being at Game 5 was something like the atmosphere of the US v. Mexico soccer match a few months ago. That was hostile territory, too, but the Mexican fans were great. It was a great scene. I went to that game thinking, "Well, I watch and try to enjoy it." But a few minutes into the match, I really wanted the US to score so I could celebrate in the middle of the enemy territory.
I'd really love to be in San Antonio today.
Alas, I'll probably be at the Dubliner in my Pat Burke jersey drinking Guinness. Not a bad place to be ...
Is this something like raising your kid and sending him off to college -- now you can only watch? Growing up in Phoenix with the Suns as our only sports team, I've lived and died with this team. We may never win a championship, but you don't love your child only if she's smart and pretty, right?
Stop babbling!
How is anyone supposed to get anything done while we're waiting?
Update:
Fear is setting in. Everyone on the radio is saying that if we get this win, we'll definitely get Game 7. Sound familiar? Yes, that what they were saying in 1993 when the Bulls came to town for Game 6.
Damn that John Paxson! You know, he was open because of Barkley. He went for a steal at the top of the key, leaving Grant open under the basket. Ainge didn't double Grant, he ran over to provide some help defense -- which was probably a good move. Then Grant kicked it to Paxson. That shot had more hang time than any punt in football history.
Today, I feel so useless. At Game 5, at least I felt like I added something as a loud fan. Before going further, I've got to say that was the best sporting event I've ever been at. It was kind of like a high school basketball game; every rebound, loose ball, shot and pass had the crowd cheering.
In high school, we went to a playoff game down in Tucson our senior year to cheer on the team (we lost that game, too). I was able to get down there, though. It was loud and hostile and fun. Paul Bertolini got escorted out of that game by an armed security guard for swearing at the other team's players (we sat behind their bench). At least I felt we could do something for the team.
Being at Game 5 was something like the atmosphere of the US v. Mexico soccer match a few months ago. That was hostile territory, too, but the Mexican fans were great. It was a great scene. I went to that game thinking, "Well, I watch and try to enjoy it." But a few minutes into the match, I really wanted the US to score so I could celebrate in the middle of the enemy territory.
I'd really love to be in San Antonio today.
Alas, I'll probably be at the Dubliner in my Pat Burke jersey drinking Guinness. Not a bad place to be ...
Is this something like raising your kid and sending him off to college -- now you can only watch? Growing up in Phoenix with the Suns as our only sports team, I've lived and died with this team. We may never win a championship, but you don't love your child only if she's smart and pretty, right?
Stop babbling!
How is anyone supposed to get anything done while we're waiting?
Update:
Fear is setting in. Everyone on the radio is saying that if we get this win, we'll definitely get Game 7. Sound familiar? Yes, that what they were saying in 1993 when the Bulls came to town for Game 6.
Damn that John Paxson! You know, he was open because of Barkley. He went for a steal at the top of the key, leaving Grant open under the basket. Ainge didn't double Grant, he ran over to provide some help defense -- which was probably a good move. Then Grant kicked it to Paxson. That shot had more hang time than any punt in football history.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
What Evil Lurks in Bruce Bowen's Shadow?
Here's a link to a really good entry about "the shadow" of your "true self"-- you know, that other thing, lurking around, waiting for an opportunity to take over. Good, evil and the dualistic nature of man on display. If you can't win being you, then perhaps you should unleash "the shadow" and see what happens. If being you isn't good enough, do a 180 and see where it gets you.
I'm reminded of that linebacker in the movie, The Program. The guy who starts on steroids in the off-season to get a starting spot on the team, then he excels, gets caughts and sucks again. He gets on the 'roids -- and, in a cause-and-effect sequence similar to Popeye and his spinach -- makes the big play in the big game, only to lose everything. Who would've thought that movie warranted deep psycho-analysis; but, he did paint his face while on the juice so at least there was some symbolism.
I've been sitting here wondering what really rubs me the wrong way about Bruce Bowen. I mean, he's a cheap and dirty player, but why does that bother me?
A little more literary allusion before I go on. Remember Richard Rich from A Man for All Seasons? Early in the play, he asks Sir (later Saint) Thomas More for an appointment. More refuses because he knows Rich does not have the character to steer clear of temptation and corruption. More tells him to avoid his shadow and stay out of politics.
"Be a teacher," More says.
"But who will know what I do? What about prestige?" Rich asks (I'm paraphrasing here).
"Your students. Yourself. Your Lord. How can you ask for a better audience than that?"
Not surprisingly, Rich betrays More for political reasons. It does not benefit a man to gain the whole world in exchange for his soul, but for Wales, Richard? For Wales?
Bill Simmons really pointed out Bowen's shadow in this article. He sums it up thusly:
"There's no doubt in my mind -- absolutely none -- that at some point between Boston and San Antonio, Bruce Bowen decided to do whatever it took to remain in the NBA. Even if it meant becoming a dirty player. "
Some may argue that he's not "dirty" he's merely "smart" or "opportunistic." Well, okay, you mean like an opportunistic ninja lurking in the shadows?
I'm sure if he ever reads this, he'll just laugh at me while driving off in one of his many Porsches (or some such other expensive ride). What lurks in his heart, though, that would allow his shadow to take over? It can be greed or love of money, because he seems like a relatively smart and determined guy who could've done well in many different walks of life. He had some drive, some desire to want to become dirty so that he could play in the NBA (similar to the face-painting 'roid monster or the attention-starved Rich).
Bowen is the Bill Lumburgh (Office Space) of the NBA. He represents all that is wrong with the NBA.
I'm reminded of that linebacker in the movie, The Program. The guy who starts on steroids in the off-season to get a starting spot on the team, then he excels, gets caughts and sucks again. He gets on the 'roids -- and, in a cause-and-effect sequence similar to Popeye and his spinach -- makes the big play in the big game, only to lose everything. Who would've thought that movie warranted deep psycho-analysis; but, he did paint his face while on the juice so at least there was some symbolism.
I've been sitting here wondering what really rubs me the wrong way about Bruce Bowen. I mean, he's a cheap and dirty player, but why does that bother me?
A little more literary allusion before I go on. Remember Richard Rich from A Man for All Seasons? Early in the play, he asks Sir (later Saint) Thomas More for an appointment. More refuses because he knows Rich does not have the character to steer clear of temptation and corruption. More tells him to avoid his shadow and stay out of politics.
"Be a teacher," More says.
"But who will know what I do? What about prestige?" Rich asks (I'm paraphrasing here).
"Your students. Yourself. Your Lord. How can you ask for a better audience than that?"
Not surprisingly, Rich betrays More for political reasons. It does not benefit a man to gain the whole world in exchange for his soul, but for Wales, Richard? For Wales?
Bill Simmons really pointed out Bowen's shadow in this article. He sums it up thusly:
"There's no doubt in my mind -- absolutely none -- that at some point between Boston and San Antonio, Bruce Bowen decided to do whatever it took to remain in the NBA. Even if it meant becoming a dirty player. "
Some may argue that he's not "dirty" he's merely "smart" or "opportunistic." Well, okay, you mean like an opportunistic ninja lurking in the shadows?
I'm sure if he ever reads this, he'll just laugh at me while driving off in one of his many Porsches (or some such other expensive ride). What lurks in his heart, though, that would allow his shadow to take over? It can be greed or love of money, because he seems like a relatively smart and determined guy who could've done well in many different walks of life. He had some drive, some desire to want to become dirty so that he could play in the NBA (similar to the face-painting 'roid monster or the attention-starved Rich).
Bowen is the Bill Lumburgh (Office Space) of the NBA. He represents all that is wrong with the NBA.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Stu Jackson on the Radio
I listened to Stu on both 910 and 620 this morning. He said that the rule is a "bright-line" rule and is one of "strict liability," meaning that if you leave the bench during an altercation, you're suspended.
Well, okay, but let's look at "altercation" and "immediate vicinity" again. When he was asked for a definition of each term, he gave HIS definition. Therefore, by giving HIS definition, players and coaches are left to use their ESP as to what he means by these words. In order to create a "bright-line" or "strict liability" rule, these terms should be clearly defined.
In his defense, he gave a pretty good definition (IMO) of "altercation." Notwithstanding my grievance regarding the inherent vagueness and subjective nature of the use of HIS, unwritten definitions, the defintion did make sense. See, Stu, you can exercise judgment!
I can't remember the specifics of that definition right now, but it sure made a lot of sense. Per this definition, the Duncan-on-the-court incident in the second period would not warrant discipline.
However, let's get picky on defintions, Stu, if it's such an easy rule to read. When asked what "immediate vicinity" meant, he said, "Well, 20 to 25 feet is not the 'immediate vicinity.'" He then went on to say that one foot away from the bench would be the "immediate vicinity." This means that "immediate vicinity" is somewhere between 1 and 25 feet from your seat on the bench. That is anything but a clear rule.
From here on out, an essential part of every team's staff needs to be a Stu Jackson mind-reader so they know how far off the bench the players can be.
Well, okay, but let's look at "altercation" and "immediate vicinity" again. When he was asked for a definition of each term, he gave HIS definition. Therefore, by giving HIS definition, players and coaches are left to use their ESP as to what he means by these words. In order to create a "bright-line" or "strict liability" rule, these terms should be clearly defined.
In his defense, he gave a pretty good definition (IMO) of "altercation." Notwithstanding my grievance regarding the inherent vagueness and subjective nature of the use of HIS, unwritten definitions, the defintion did make sense. See, Stu, you can exercise judgment!
I can't remember the specifics of that definition right now, but it sure made a lot of sense. Per this definition, the Duncan-on-the-court incident in the second period would not warrant discipline.
However, let's get picky on defintions, Stu, if it's such an easy rule to read. When asked what "immediate vicinity" meant, he said, "Well, 20 to 25 feet is not the 'immediate vicinity.'" He then went on to say that one foot away from the bench would be the "immediate vicinity." This means that "immediate vicinity" is somewhere between 1 and 25 feet from your seat on the bench. That is anything but a clear rule.
From here on out, an essential part of every team's staff needs to be a Stu Jackson mind-reader so they know how far off the bench the players can be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
