The Suspensions

Boris · #1 11-21-2004, 06:09 AM

The rumor is 20 games for Jackson and O'Neil, 30 games for Artest.

Seems reasonable to me.

Edge34 · #2 11-21-2004, 06:12 AM

I won't argue as long as Ben Wallace ends up with AT LEAST 10. I mean, anything less than that is to totally ignore his role in keeping the player battle going and, in turn, inciting the fans of what is really HIS team. Without him, the Pistons are nothing but a bunch of undersized role-players, except Rasheed. And I don't think you'd find many who disagree with me.

nothumb · #3 11-21-2004, 06:16 AM

I definitely disagree with you. Wallace didn't make that fan throw anything, nor did he force Artest to go into the stands. If Artest had the stones to stand up to Wallace instead of a five foot ten nerd in glasses, it would have ended much faster - with his punk ass getting laid out.

I think ten might happen for Wallace just because of how ugly things turned out, but if nothing had happened beyond the shoving and shouting (i.e. fans had reacted just the same as they usually do, by staying in the stands and not lobbing crap at the players) this would be at most a 3-gamer.

NT

Richard Tanner · #4 11-21-2004, 06:17 AM

I would actually agree to this as a compromise to end this. However Detroit must also pay as a franchise. I mentioned in another thread limiting their ticket sales to 5,000 people for a large amount of games or something similar.

Cody

Edge34 · #5 11-21-2004, 06:37 AM

If it hadn't gone farther than the pushing and shoving, there wouldn't be ANY suspensions, becuase none of the stuff that happened afterwards would have.

Wallace didn't MAKE anybody do anything, but neither did Artest. But to ignore Ben's role as the instigator of the entire thing - and let's not kid ourselves, fans react to their star player and his emotions, and that's Wallace for the Pistons - is undeniable. The fact is, and video shows, Artest WAS the bigger man, which means he had big enough stones not to start something he couldn't finish. And don't tell me the foul was cheap; it was hard, but it wasn't ANYTHING by NBA standards (and even less if it was a guy like Shaq, who gets mugged nightly).

Richard, I'll put my response to you here as a bundle. The league should just stop selling alcohol at games. Sure, this will be a minor economic hit, but they're already making a killing off the jerseys and tickets, and the TV deals they have don't suck either. I don't think they need to penalize Detroit's fans by saying only 5,000 can come, although that MIGHT get them to think about being more responsible. I'll think about it and post again when I've gotten a little sleep...

nothumb · #6 11-21-2004, 06:46 AM

1. It was a stupid, cheap, unnecessary foul. If someone did that to me in a game that wasn't close I would be very angry, and I am by no means a soft player. It was no doubt exacerbated by the history of these teams, but it was a cheap shot without a doubt.

2. Regardless of whether fans threw things due to Wallace's actions, he is not responsible for their actions. Who knows? Maybe the guy threw something because he thought Artest was acting like a douche by lying on the scorer's table. This is precisely the reason why legally and ethically we cannot hold someone responsible for anyone's actions but their own or those of people in their custody. While we can speculate to a great degree that Wallace played a large part in the fan's decision, we cannot hold him (Wallace) responsible for it.

In hockey, if you start a fight with someone on purpose, you can get an instigator penalty and get tossed. But if you start a fight with someone and a fan decides to start a brawl in the stands concurrently, that's his own damn problem. The problem in the current case is the fans. Not the players. There have been thousands of shoving and shouting matches like this one. Do you suppose we should have suspended all those players for 10 games apiece? No.

3. You have a Pacers symbol in your avatar.

NT

Richard Tanner · #7 11-21-2004, 06:54 AM

Edge's symbol has nothing to do with his point, never has he said that Artest should get nothing because he likes the Pacers, but rather he's supported his opinions with facts. In the other post there was a Detroit fan that said that this was a good thing because it would weaken the Pacers enough to allow Detroit to finish with a better record.
I hope the difference between the two is clear.

Cody

scrub · #8 11-21-2004, 01:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I won't argue as long as Ben Wallace ends up with AT LEAST 10. I mean, anything less than that is to totally ignore his role in keeping the player battle going and, in turn, inciting the fans of what is really HIS team. Without him, the Pistons are nothing but a bunch of undersized role-players, except Rasheed. And I don't think you'd find many who disagree with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disclaimer: While I'm a Knicks fan, Wallace is on my fantasy team.

The problem with giving Wallace 10 games is that there's no precedent for suspending a player for that long for shoving someone.

While it might be "right" to suspend him for that long in some abstract sense, collective bargaining agreements aren't about being "right." The players union is going to see punishing Wallace with a huge suspension as a violation of the agreements they have with the league about player suspensions, and they're going to fight it.

While it seems unfair to hurt the Pacers so much more than the Pistons with these suspensions for an incident in which both teams were responsible, there's precedent for how Wallace should be punished that will be hard to buck. The Pacers players, on the other hand, aren't going to have a lot of precedent to protect themselves with. They pretty much came up with a whole new infraction the league has to punish.

Fair or not, this is going to end up hurting the Pacers a lot more than the Pistons.

scrub

Clarkmeister · #9 11-21-2004, 01:16 PM

It's way too long for Jackson and particularly O'Neil. I'm ok with it for Artest, though I think it should be closer to 20-25 games for him.

Sponger15SB · #10 11-21-2004, 01:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's way too long for Jackson and particularly O'Neil. I'm ok with it for Artest, though I think it should be closer to 20-25 games for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you miss O'Neil running up from nowhere to land a huge punch to some guy on the court, I think he should get the biggest suspension over Artest and Jackson