RealGM

Luv those Knicks wrote:

HurricaneDij25 wrote:The Pacers hosted the Orlando Magic that day, led by Steve Francis, Grant Hill, and rookie Dwight Howard...

It was the day after the brawl, and the Pacers roster had been decimated by suspensions as well as preseason injuries. The Pacers only had six players available for their game against Orlando. Without looking it up,

Can you name the six players?

I was able to get five of them without looking, the sixth I had to double check on...

Let's just say we should all be thankful was have a considerably more competent NBA head office today than we did in 2004... Today's NBA most likely would not have made us play w/ only six players and likely would have postponed the game.

I thought the NBA had a rule that 8 players rule in place by that time, but the box score checks out. 12 players on the roster, 3 didn't dress, 3 suspended, 6 played.

In the 1997 playoffs, when 5 knicks were suspended for running onto the court, that time PJ Brown flipped Charlie Ward. (Ward tried to tie up PJ's legs on the FT line, which he really shouldn't have done), but anyway, the league staggered those suspensions, so the Knicks had 8 players for the first game, 9 for the second. I guess they couldn't do that with Artest, who was suspended for the full season, and they could have, but didn't want to do it with the other suspended players.

I think that rule was already in place, but I guess the league was so mad about the "malice" that they didn't honor it.


and . . . good luck against us in the playoffs. I'm rooting for a Knicks win, ofcourse, but I don't dislike Indiana the way I dislike Philly. Looks like a good match-up.

HurricaneDij25 wrote:

Luv those Knicks wrote:

HurricaneDij25 wrote:The Pacers hosted the Orlando Magic that day, led by Steve Francis, Grant Hill, and rookie Dwight Howard...

It was the day after the brawl, and the Pacers roster had been decimated by suspensions as well as preseason injuries. The Pacers only had six players available for their game against Orlando. Without looking it up,

Can you name the six players?

I was able to get five of them without looking, the sixth I had to double check on...

Let's just say we should all be thankful was have a considerably more competent NBA head office today than we did in 2004... Today's NBA most likely would not have made us play w/ only six players and likely would have postponed the game.

I thought the NBA had a rule that 8 players rule in place by that time, but the box score checks out. 12 players on the roster, 3 didn't dress, 3 suspended, 6 played.

In the 1997 playoffs, when 5 knicks were suspended for running onto the court, that time PJ Brown flipped Charlie Ward. (Ward tried to tie up PJ's legs on the FT line, which he really shouldn't have done), but anyway, the league staggered those suspensions, so the Knicks had 8 players for the first game, 9 for the second. I guess they couldn't do that with Artest, who was suspended for the full season, and they could have, but didn't want to do it with the other suspended players.

I think that rule was already in place, but I guess the league was so mad about the "malice" that they didn't honor it.


and . . . good luck against us in the playoffs. I'm rooting for a Knicks win, ofcourse, but I don't dislike Indiana the way I dislike Philly. Looks like a good match-up.

Remember, that was the season after Shaq and Kobe had broken up... Stern was going to do everything and anything to bend the rules to prevent a Pacers/Spurs final from happening.

More than two times the age now as I was then, I won't let go of this opinion as long as I live.

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Put yourself in Stern’s shoes. It’s not so much that he’s trying to prevent the Pacers/Spurs championship matchup (it was super early in the season, LOTS could happen in between). It was an absolutely unique event that hasn’t happened in the nba since, and hadn’t happened in the televised era of the game before. He may have messed up in punishments somehow, but it probably wasn’t out of malice to the Pacers as much as not having a precedent to act off of as guidance.


To this day, my biggest issue is that I thought he should have penalized the Pistons with a game or two with no fans in the stands. But, since the commissioner works to service ownerships interests first and foremost, that was never gonna happen.

Luv those Knicks wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Put yourself in Stern’s shoes. It’s not so much that he’s trying to prevent the Pacers/Spurs championship matchup (it was super early in the season, LOTS could happen in between). It was an absolutely unique event that hasn’t happened in the nba since, and hadn’t happened in the televised era of the game before. He may have messed up in punishments somehow, but it probably wasn’t out of malice to the Pacers as much as not having a precedent to act off of as guidance.


To this day, my biggest issue is that I thought he should have penalized the Pistons with a game or two with no fans in the stands. But, since the commissioner works to service ownerships interests first and foremost, that was never gonna happen.

The fan who threw the beer at Ron Artest was banned from attending Pistons home games and got 30 days in jail and 2 years probation for "assault". Stern might not have had a hand in that, but I'd call that fair punishment. Artest might not, but I would.

Throwing a beer at somebody happens all the time in the movies. My brother did it to me once in a bar when we were arguing. I had no idea it could carry a jail sentence, but doing it at a sports game is a bit different.

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Luv those Knicks wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Put yourself in Stern’s shoes. It’s not so much that he’s trying to prevent the Pacers/Spurs championship matchup (it was super early in the season, LOTS could happen in between). It was an absolutely unique event that hasn’t happened in the nba since, and hadn’t happened in the televised era of the game before. He may have messed up in punishments somehow, but it probably wasn’t out of malice to the Pacers as much as not having a precedent to act off of as guidance.


To this day, my biggest issue is that I thought he should have penalized the Pistons with a game or two with no fans in the stands. But, since the commissioner works to service ownerships interests first and foremost, that was never gonna happen.

The fan who threw the beer at Ron Artest was banned from attending Pistons home games and got 30 days in jail and 2 years probation for "assault". Stern might not have had a hand in that, but I'd call that fair punishment. Artest might not, but I would.

Throwing a beer at somebody happens all the time in the movies. My brother did it to me once in a bar when we were arguing. I had no idea it could carry a jail sentence, but doing it at a sports game is a bit different.

Sure. To go more in depth, I wasn't saying Detroit should have been penalized with no fans for the one throwing of a beer. The Pistons were severely understaffed that night with security, and there were too many instances of fans throwing things onto the court or tunnel by entirely too many fans. For a large part, the lower bowl, and fans at large were largely complicit with the inciteful actions that day. That was why I would say that the Pistons should have had a game or two with no fans as punishment, much like a European soccer club.

Luv those Knicks wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Luv those Knicks wrote:
The fan who threw the beer at Ron Artest was banned from attending Pistons home games and got 30 days in jail and 2 years probation for "assault". Stern might not have had a hand in that, but I'd call that fair punishment. Artest might not, but I would.

Throwing a beer at somebody happens all the time in the movies. My brother did it to me once in a bar when we were arguing. I had no idea it could carry a jail sentence, but doing it at a sports game is a bit different.

Sure. To go more in depth, I wasn't saying Detroit should have been penalized with no fans for the one throwing of a beer. The Pistons were severely understaffed that night with security, and there were too many instances of fans throwing things onto the court or tunnel by entirely too many fans. For a large part, the lower bowl, and fans at large were largely complicit with the inciteful actions that day. That was why I would say that the Pistons should have had a game or two with no fans as punishment, much like a European soccer club.

That makes sense. Or some kind of fine. I'm guessing the league changed security policy for everyone after that.