PDA

View Full Version : I'm losing respect for Robert Horry



VaDukie
05-20-2007, 11:14 PM
Big shot Bob has been one of my favorite players for some time. But after the Nash cheap shot and this article...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2877137&sportCat=nba

I was already rooting for the Jazz because of Boozer, but now I REALLY want to see them win.

adam
05-21-2007, 01:19 AM
As much as I love Boozer, I'm betting that Tim Duncan will carry the Spurs into the NBA Finals.

Not that I really care, though... I'm counting down the days until the real basketball season starts. Go DUKE!!! :)

CDu
05-21-2007, 05:57 AM
Big shot Bob has been one of my favorite players for some time. But after the Nash cheap shot and this article...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2877137&sportCat=nba

I was already rooting for the Jazz because of Boozer, but now I REALLY want to see them win.

Unfortunately, I think what Horry says in that article is true about the NBA. Statement fouls are a part of playoff basketball. It's stupid and it shouldn't be the case, but these are highly competitive people, and highly competitive people can tend to be poor sports. I think the "statement foul" is not at all uncommon among veteran basketball players. I think it used to be far more common in the NBA, in fact. I don't like it at all. I think that if you get beat, you should take it like a man, and not resort to cheap shots to make a statement. Make a statement by not getting beat next time. But that's not the way it is unfortunately.

And he's right: his foul was far less egregious than some of the other fouls in this year's playoffs. If the Suns don't react the way they reacted, nobody remembers that play and we'd be talking about Baron Davis' shot to Derek Fisher instead. I think it's ridiculous that Horry's hip-check (which happens probably 5-10 times in every game on high screens) got a two-game suspension while Davis got no punishment.

I'm disappointed in the result because I don't like the Spurs' style of play (and I think they're very chippy in general) while I think the Suns are a very fun team to watch play. And I hate that the aggressors/enforcers clearly benefited from a stupid rule. I don't believe Horry's intent was to draw a suspension. It was more a "we're not done yet" shot letting Nash know he's going to have to win one more physical game.

That said, I think the rule that cost the Suns is stupid. I think it has some very perverse incentives, and actually encourages the idea of the "enforcer" returning. For example, the Suns could have, in game 6, sent in Jalen Rose (a guy at the end of his career who never plays) once Duncan steps out of the game, and have him body slam Tony Parker and just start wailing on him. The worst-case scenario is you beat the crap out of Parker and lose Rose (who never plays anyway) for a long time. The best-case scenario is that you beat up on Parker AND you draw Duncan off the bench for a suspension. It's extreme and it's terribly dirty, but it's a reasonable strategy given the rules currently in place. And if someone does it just once, I guarantee that rule will get changed in a hurry.

greybeard
05-21-2007, 01:25 PM
It began with Bowen. That knee should have cost him two, at least. He was clearly over the line, way over it. Don't forget, that came after Amare called Bowen out as a dirty player who was out to hurt people.

Stern needed to put a stop to the physical intimidation tactics that were afoot. He didn't and it was obvious, at least to me, that something "bad" was going to happen. I thought that it was going to be that Bowen was going to hurt someone, as in seriously hurt someone.

Horry's behavior was so far over the top that he should have been put out of the plyoffs. I don't care that he didn't hurt anyone. Gratuitously hitting the franchise player with a shoulder while he was going full speed in the open court is like spitting in someone's face, only worse. In context, after Bowen had been given a slap on the wrist, it indicated a collective approach to the game by San Antonio that diminishes who they are.

No way should Stern have punished Amare and Diaw with suspensions. None.

TK and Wilbon both say that the series is irrevocably tainted; that Stern has cost the NBA many viewers because of that ruling. I know that I ain't watching.

BTW, when several of your players gratuitously kick the same guy in the groin and then shoulder him into the boards, aren't you as a coach held accountable. Pop is a terrific coach and by all accounts a terrific guy. Even terrific coaches and guys make errors of judgment. I think that this was one of them.

Stern says it was an iron-clad rule. Only because he made it that, and I believe that he made it that because he was unwilling to put the blame where it belonged, with the coach.

That is number 2 for Stern. The first was with Zeke, when he ordered his boy to take down the first Denver player he could, and then told Anthony and the rest of the world that that is exactly what he had done. Stern didn't have no iron clad rule then. He saw some ambuity in the words that Zeke had said (there was none) and found inadequate evidence to go after the coach.

Blaming this stuff on the players at this point is completely ridiculous. The blame lies at the top with the imperious Stern, who is too filed with himself to do the job they pay him for. He should move upstairs, and let a real man who takes the job of managing the league seriously do it. Stern can then spend his time doing what he does best; trying to sell it. This time Davy boy, people ain't buying.

ikiru36
05-21-2007, 01:40 PM
Big (cheap) shot Rob, indeed! Classy Spurs fans too, eh? Horry receiving the loudest and longest applause of his career, upon return from this? Sure, clap for his return (i guess), but an over-the-top standing O is such a disgracefully poor message to any who care about fairness and sportsmanship.

:mad:

greybeard
05-21-2007, 01:42 PM
IMO, the best team left is Detroit. If Detroit and SA meet, Bowen will be guarding Rip, or perhaps Tashawn. He will try to intimidate them, rough them up.

I don't know about the rest of the Detroiters, but I know one guy who will not stand for it. Dumars. Bowen pulls the same stuff, look for someone on SA to get hurt. My guess, Parker or Mano, maybe even the big guy. Dumars might have been quiet, but he did walk off the court with Zeke and the boyz rather than shake MJ's hand. No, if Stern don't do something to reign Bowen in, the playoffs this year threaten to degenerate into something very unseemly. Stern needs some iron, but it ain't in no rules. It's called backbone.

ScreechTDX
05-21-2007, 02:01 PM
It began with Bowen. That knee should have cost him two, at least. He was clearly over the line, way over it. Don't forget, that came after Amare called Bowen out as a dirty player who was out to hurt people.

Stern needed to put a stop to the physical intimidation tactics that were afoot. He didn't and it was obvious, at least to me, that something "bad" was going to happen. I thought that it was going to be that Bowen was going to hurt someone, as in seriously hurt someone.

Horry's behavior was so far over the top that he should have been put out of the plyoffs. I don't care that he didn't hurt anyone. Gratuitously hitting the franchise player with a shoulder while he was going full speed in the open court is like spitting in someone's face, only worse. In context, after Bowen had been given a slap on the wrist, it indicated a collective approach to the game by San Antonio that diminishes who they are.

No way should Stern have punished Amare and Diaw with suspensions. None.

TK and Wilbon both say that the series is irrevocably tainted; that Stern has cost the NBA many viewers because of that ruling. I know that I ain't watching.

BTW, when several of your players gratuitously kick the same guy in the groin and then shoulder him into the boards, aren't you as a coach held accountable. Pop is a terrific coach and by all accounts a terrific guy. Even terrific coaches and guys make errors of judgment. I think that this was one of them.

Stern says it was an iron-clad rule. Only because he made it that, and I believe that he made it that because he was unwilling to put the blame where it belonged, with the coach.

That is number 2 for Stern. The first was with Zeke, when he ordered his boy to take down the first Denver player he could, and then told Anthony and the rest of the world that that is exactly what he had done. Stern didn't have no iron clad rule then. He saw some ambuity in the words that Zeke had said (there was none) and found inadequate evidence to go after the coach.

Blaming this stuff on the players at this point is completely ridiculous. The blame lies at the top with the imperious Stern, who is too filed with himself to do the job they pay him for. He should move upstairs, and let a real man who takes the job of managing the league seriously do it. Stern can then spend his time doing what he does best; trying to sell it. This time Davy boy, people ain't buying.

I agree with this competely.

feldspar
05-21-2007, 02:18 PM
Stern says it was an iron-clad rule. Only because he made it that, and I believe that he made it that because he was unwilling to put the blame where it belonged, with the coach.


Oh, pshaw. It's been an ironclad rule for over 10 years and dates back to the old Heat-Knicks series in the late 90s when Ewing was suspended for coming off the bench during a fight. It's intent is to discourage situations in which an all-out basketbrawl can take place.

Players have this rule hammered into their brains the second they step onto a basketball court in high school. These guys have known about the rule for YEARS, and yet they chose to ignore it. I don't pity them at all.

Stoudamire and Diaw were stupid enough to leave the bench during an altercation. They were stupid enough to deserve a suspension. That's all there is to it.

greybeard
05-21-2007, 02:35 PM
They left the bench in reaction to their boy going flying through the air. Before there was any altercation, if there was one. So, Stern could have ruled that they left the bench reflexively to see if Nash could do a triple toe loop on the way down, and an altercation, which they went nowhere near, broke out afterwards

Their boy went flying through the air because Horry threw a shoulder into him at the end of a game that was over while the guy was going full speed. That never happens if Bowen had been properly punished the game before for kicking Nash in the groin.

Is there an iron clad rule about kicking a guy in the groin deliberately? Or is that discretionary. You get to pay a fine if they drop within a reasonable time?

Come on Feldspar, you ref. Could he have said that they left the bench before any altercation broke out, in response to seeing their boy go flying? If so, is there an iron clad anything?

I get your point about joining an altercation; just think that Stern botched this from the giddyup.

feldspar
05-21-2007, 02:54 PM
They left the bench in reaction to their boy going flying through the air. Before there was any altercation, if there was one. So, Stern could have ruled that they left the bench reflexively to see if Nash could do a triple toe loop on the way down, and an altercation, which they went nowhere near, broke out afterwards

Their boy went flying through the air because Horry threw a shoulder into him at the end of a game that was over while the guy was going full speed. That never happens if Bowen had been properly punished the game before for kicking Nash in the groin.

Is there an iron clad rule about kicking a guy in the groin deliberately? Or is that discretionary. You get to pay a fine if they drop within a reasonable time?

Come on Feldspar, you ref. Could he have said that they left the bench before any altercation broke out, in response to seeing their boy go flying? If so, is there an iron clad anything?

I get your point about joining an altercation; just think that Stern botched this from the giddyup.


You're making this more complicated than it needs to be.

There was an altercation. Diaw and Stoudamire left the bench as a result. Automatic suspension.

To suggest a more mild course of action makes the rule completely impotent.

And, FWIW, this has nothing to do with being a ref. These suspensions come down from the league, not from the officials.

greybeard
05-21-2007, 03:14 PM
It was meant that way: showing deference to your knowledge of the rules and your having actually undertaken the impenetrably difficult task of applying them in real time.

feldspar
05-21-2007, 03:25 PM
It was meant that way: showing deference to your knowledge of the rules and your having actually undertaken the impenetrably difficult task of applying them in real time.

Oh, I did take it as a complement. However, I still felt the need to clarify.

Cheers.

1Devil
05-21-2007, 04:34 PM
There was an altercation. Diaw and Stoudamire left the bench as a result. Automatic suspension.

Zero tolerance policies that do not allow common sense into the decision-making process are designed to be administered by fools. Does the NBA believe its officials are fools?

mapei
05-21-2007, 04:57 PM
Personally, I am now done with the NBA. I watched the media-darling Warriors pull one dirty play after another, with minimal repercussions and with Davis heralded as the league's bright new star. I've seen one player after another from every team whine extravagantly after every foul call and frequently after no-calls. I watched Tim Duncan (whom I've always liked since when he was at Wake) whine and mock an official and it's the official who gets suspended. Duncan also walks on the court toward players who are getting in each other's face, but that's ruled not an altercation, so Tim can stay in the series.

And then, worst of all, I watched what from an outsider's point of view appeared to be a Spurs team that was coached to rough up Nash as much as they could, with whatever they could get away with. And it paid off, first because of a bloody nose, and then because a couple of players, one an all-pro, understandably took a few steps toward a fallen teammate and his perpetrator, and got suspended, costing their team a clean shot at winning the series.

Good god, this is basketball? This is fair application of the rules? I'm primarily a fan of the college game, so I hadn't been watching the NBA this season. I started watching a couple of weeks ago and was totally unprepared for what I saw. It's become the NHL. I'm not a big fan of any NBA team, and until this year had sort of liked the Spurs and Suns both. But this has completely changed me. I now despise the Spurs and don't think much better of the league in general. I'm certainly not watching, not now and maybe not ever.

feldspar
05-21-2007, 07:52 PM
Zero tolerance policies that do not allow common sense into the decision-making process are designed to be administered by fools. Does the NBA believe its officials are fools?

Again, get your facts straight. The penalty you're referring to isn't administered by the officials.

BobbyFan
05-21-2007, 08:46 PM
Players have this rule hammered into their brains the second they step onto a basketball court in high school. These guys have known about the rule for YEARS, and yet they chose to ignore it.

You really think they "choose to ignore it"? It's hardly unreasonable that Amare and Diaw both a) knew the rule, and b) had an immediate reaction to seeing their leader take a cheap shot in a series which had been extremely physical and chippy to that point.


Stoudamire and Diaw were stupid enough to leave the bench during an altercation. They were stupid enough to deserve a suspension. That's all there is to it.

Yes, Stoudemire and Diaw should have been suspended based on the rule in place. But the only part to which "stupid" applies is the rule itself.

greybeard
05-21-2007, 11:39 PM
Amare and Diaw left the bench when Nash was hit; before any altercation began. They did not leave the bench to join an altercation. Therefore, the rule is applicable only if their actions after the altercation began can reasonably be deemed as a new violation. We are talking grey here Feldspar, not iron clad; Stern blew it.

CDu
05-22-2007, 08:04 AM
and it's definitions are stupid, too. Stoudamire and Diaw left the bench before the "altercation" occurred. They did so in a similar manner to what Duncan did in an earlier "near-altercation" in the game. Had the Suns player shoved the Spurs player when Duncan was off the bench, he'd be suspended, too. Luckily for the Spurs, that incident didn't result in any shoving.

The original intent of the rule was to prevent bench-clearing brawls, and to supposedly thus protect the players from injury. Did Stoudamire and Diaw get into a bench-clearing brawl? No. Did they interact with opposing players? No. But because the NBA has a poorly defined rule in place, they get suspended. So, the rule, as it is defined, was applied correctly. That doesn't make it the correct outcome. And celebrating the correct application of a faulty rule shouldn't is silly.

The rule needs adjustment. A team shouldn't be able to benefit by taking cheap shots at opposing players. And stepping off the bench but not doing ANYTHING shouldn't result in a suspension. I just think the league is headed in the wrong direction when a team that plays clean basketball gets punished for (very mildly) reacting to repeated cheap shots from a dirty/chippy opponent. A team shouldn't be in a position to benefit from repeated cheap shots.

feldspar
05-22-2007, 08:33 AM
and it's definitions are stupid, too. Stoudamire and Diaw left the bench before the "altercation" occurred. They did so in a similar manner to what Duncan did in an earlier "near-altercation" in the game. Had the Suns player shoved the Spurs player when Duncan was off the bench, he'd be suspended, too. Luckily for the Spurs, that incident didn't result in any shoving.

The original intent of the rule was to prevent bench-clearing brawls, and to supposedly thus protect the players from injury. Did Stoudamire and Diaw get into a bench-clearing brawl? No. Did they interact with opposing players? No. But because the NBA has a poorly defined rule in place, they get suspended. So, the rule, as it is defined, was applied correctly. That doesn't make it the correct outcome. And celebrating the correct application of a faulty rule shouldn't is silly.

The rule needs adjustment. A team shouldn't be able to benefit by taking cheap shots at opposing players. And stepping off the bench but not doing ANYTHING shouldn't result in a suspension. I just think the league is headed in the wrong direction when a team that plays clean basketball gets punished for (very mildly) reacting to repeated cheap shots from a dirty/chippy opponent. A team shouldn't be in a position to benefit from repeated cheap shots.

C'mon folks. You guys are completely seperated from reality here.

First, there is absolutely no indication that Stoudamire in particular was off the bench only out of concern for Nash. That's just laughable. He saw his guy get clocked and he ran to the scene of the crime not to help his buddy off the ground and pat him on the butt, but because he knew sh*t was about to go down. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Diaw, I can perhaps give a pass to. He was actually headed directly towards Nash from the replays I see. Still, that's not his place. He should have been smart enough to know that what he saw was not a normal foul and even if it was, you have no place jumping off the bench and going to help a teammate up off the floor. That's a technical foul in and of itself.

Why all the animus towards David Stern? The rule has been in existence for 10 years now!!!! And you're just now bitching about it?

elvis14
05-22-2007, 09:33 AM
Why all the animus towards David Stern? The rule has been in existence for 10 years now!!!! And you're just now bitching about it?

That's an easy question to answer. For many NBA fans the series between the Spurs and Suns was the real NBA finals. It was a cool match up of contrasting styles. Then it went bad. The chippy play from the Spurs, the unpunished knee to the MVG (most valuable groin), and finally the hip check from Cheap Shot Bob. Stern had to suspend Amare and Diaw. Not because it was the right thing to do, it wasn't IMHO, but because the rule is inflexible. So this great series was basically ruined because the team bending the rules got the team playing pretty clean ball to react mildly for 8 seconds and break that one inflexible rule. We are bitching about it because we are bummed that this great series didn't get to be a great series and as basketball fans, we love great series.

On another note. I have been less than impressed with the amount of contact, rough play, and cheaps shots the NBA has allowed in this year's playoffs. I know that all of that is part of the game the but GSW/Utah series was even worse than the Spurs hack job on the Suns. The cheap shot Baron Davis took got the most press, it was actually one of 3 in that one game. The Warriors were playing flat out dirty. But because of their up tempo style of play and being a fresh playoff story they were media darlings. My goodness, the way they bitched about every call they should have been getting Tech's all game long. It was like watching a team with Rasheed playing 4 spots on the floor! I'm glad the Jazz won and would love it if they could find a way to beat the Spurs.

As for the rule, it's not subjective and it needs to be. It needs to be "if you leave the bench and join the altercation in any way". It's not been changed because its easy to enforce the way it is now.

feldspar
05-22-2007, 09:39 AM
As for the rule, it's not subjective and it needs to be. It needs to be "if you leave the bench and join the altercation in any way". It's not been changed because its easy to enforce the way it is now.

I'm not opposed to revisiting the rule. The whining and moaning about the enforcement of an existing rule is what gets to me.

However, I wonder how you could adequately define "join" in regards to the altercation. Personally, I think the rule is necessary as it stands. Players leaving the bench makes it more likely that, out of team self-defense, even more players from both sides are going to join in the melee and it will become an all out ruckus.

Funny thing is that many don't realize - the very rule that you all are spending so much time bemoaning very well may be the rule that kept that situation from getting uglier than it did. Stoudamire and Diaw may have left the bench and ultimately not really done anything, but who knows what could have happened if some other players who probably wanted to leave the bench had. Could have been a heck of a lot uglier than it was.

mapei
05-22-2007, 12:04 PM
Thank you, elvis. My sentiments exactly.

ikiru36
05-22-2007, 12:37 PM
I'm not opposed to revisiting the rule. The whining and moaning about the enforcement of an existing rule is what gets to me.

However, I wonder how you could adequately define "join" in regards to the altercation. Personally, I think the rule is necessary as it stands. Players leaving the bench makes it more likely that, out of team self-defense, even more players from both sides are going to join in the melee and it will become an all out ruckus.

Funny thing is that many don't realize - the very rule that you all are spending so much time bemoaning very well may be the rule that kept that situation from getting uglier than it did. Stoudamire and Diaw may have left the bench and ultimately not really done anything, but who knows what could have happened if some other players who probably wanted to leave the bench had. Could have been a heck of a lot uglier than it was.

I (and I think others arguing here) agree that having a rule regarding leaving the bench during a fight is useful/necessary and may even have played a role in not escalating things in this specific instance. The issue is at least 2-fold re: the rule itself:

1) While not horribly vague, it could benefit from a further definition of the word 'altercation' (as well as the word 'join' as you point out). And the time frame of events is not invalid to point out, and perhaps would need to be addressed. To my eyes, during the earlier incident, Tim Duncan was on the court before the Spurs player collected himself off the floor. Would you have suspended Duncan had he done the identical thing, yet the Spurs player happened to get up mad instead of dazed?

2) Perhaps the rule should (if no direct involvement in an "altercation" occurs) have its punishment be a substantial fine (10% of annual salary?) to the player rather than a suspension which may unfairly effect the whole team negatively. Just a thought.

Go Duke!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!