I'm losing respect for Robert Horry

[feldspar]

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]

Thank you, elvis. My sentiments exactly.

[ikiru36]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!