gantrules Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Just to play devil's advocate, how many 12 year old girls are hurt by half full cups of water? I also think that Artest was about to get a shot off at that fan when he was bear hugged from behind. Still, I tend to agree with you about Jackson being the biggest offender. It seems clear that this is the area in which Stern looked at Artest's prior offenses. Unless Artest got a stiffer penalty due to being the first one into the crowd. That would be a kind of weak reason to give Jackson a lesser penalty IMO. ---------------------------------------- Stern was just plain wrong in saying that he looked at his past prior to making a decision. If that was his basis he should have kept it to himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kgun5 Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I think Stern actually said that the decision was at least partly due to Artest's earlier behavior. I am not sure how I feel about that one. I understand both sides of the argument. I just think 73 games and 10 million dollars is too much to pay for committing a hard foul, AVOIDING a brawl after being punched first, laying on the scorer's table while the rest of the players scuffled, being hit by a cup of water thrown by a fan, charging the stands, NOT punching anyone but just being wrestled around, then being accosted by two other fans unprovoked, and punching both of them once when they came toward him, both of which happened as Artest was retreating (once being back by the scorer's table and the last fan walking right out onto the court). 128702[/snapback] I understand what you're saying Kelly, and to an extent, I think you're right. Artest should have gotten zero to one game(s) for everything that happened before he went into the stands depending on what the league thought of the foul Wallace took offense to. That doesn't change that he DID go into the stands, however. I don't even care that he got the wrong guy (whether or not that's true -- I'm not sure how that could be proved at this point), as it doesn't make his actions any better or worse in my view. Also, whether he punched the guy or not is really a legal matter. Artest went into the stands andd got physically involved with a fan, and that's what I think he was nailed for (the severity of said nailing seemingly altered by the league's view of his past conduct). I'll bet if Jackson, (or any other Pacer for that matter,) hadn't followed Artest into the stands, that security would have been allowed to get in and diffuse the situation. Had that happened, does Artest still get (or deserve) the season long ban? I think he does. Jackson and co. made a huge mistake following Ron into the crowd, especially since it seems that at least Jackson was not there to break it up, but to get involved. As for the fan on the court, he didn't belong there at all, and it's his fault for being so stupid. Despite the fact that he didn't seem to threaten Artest at all (physically,) I think Artest's cold cocking him, while wrong, was much more forgivable than the trip into the seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Stern was just plain wrong in saying that he looked at his past prior to making a decision. If that was his basis he should have kept it to himself. 128711[/snapback] This is one of the biggest points i disagree with. In this case, which is what makes it so rare, Stern actually had to consider the safety of his paying customers. Now, let's just say that this was Steve Nash that got hit with the water and went ape-s#it. Ok, he did, he snapped, but he has never before done anything like this. There is a good chance he just snapped, it is out of character, and it most likely won't happen again. Let's suspend him for 30 games. End of story. Artest is a constant problem. He had eight flagrant fouls last season, got fined for two obscene gestures, got into a fight with Raja Bell and a verbal fight with Pat Riley that was this close to turning violent. So now, if we suspend Artest for 10 games, and let him back, what will that do? NOTHING. He is a loose cannon that CANNOT CONTROL HIMSELF. He is like a giant version of a kid with ADD. He needs help. Hopefully the NBA will get him into an ager management course or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kgun5 Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Just to play devil's advocate, how many 12 year old girls are hurt by half full cups of water? I also think that Artest was about to get a shot off at that fan when he was bear hugged from behind. Still, I tend to agree with you about Jackson being the biggest offender. It seems clear that this is the area in which Stern looked at Artest's prior offenses. Unless Artest got a stiffer penalty due to being the first one into the crowd. That would be a kind of weak reason to give Jackson a lesser penalty IMO. ---------------------------------------- Stern was just plain wrong in saying that he looked at his past prior to making a decision. If that was his basis he should have kept it to himself. 128711[/snapback] Maybe...I'm not really sure if the NBA's policy is to take that into account or not. What I mean is, have they used prior transgressions in the past to lengthen suspensions, (I think Spreewell may have suffered in a similar way). If they have, do they pick and choose, or are they consistant. I would guess that Stern's comments would be Artest's best chance in an appeal scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantrules Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 So now, if we suspend Artest for 10 games, and let him back, what will that do? NOTHING. He is a loose cannon that CANNOT CONTROL HIMSELF. He is like a giant version of a kid with ADD. He needs help. Hopefully the NBA will get him into an ager management course or something. ------------------- If Stern thinks the guy has anger problems then calling him out in front of billions of people and not offering any help other than "I'm taking your job away for a year" is going to help this guy? Yes, he needs help. But, I can't see how Stern is helping the problem. Treat him like an adult and talk to him about it one-on-one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I understand what you're saying Kelly, and to an extent, I think you're right. Artest should have gotten zero to one game(s) for everything that happened before he went into the stands depending on what the league thought of the foul Wallace took offense to. That doesn't change that he DID go into the stands, however. I don't even care that he got the wrong guy (whether or not that's true -- I'm not sure how that could be proved at this point), as it doesn't make his actions any better or worse in my view. Also, whether he punched the guy or not is really a legal matter. Artest went into the stands andd got physically involved with a fan, and that's what I think he was nailed for (the severity of said nailing seemingly altered by the league's view of his past conduct). I'll bet if Jackson, (or any other Pacer for that matter,) hadn't followed Artest into the stands, that security would have been allowed to get in and diffuse the situation. Had that happened, does Artest still get (or deserve) the season long ban? I think he does. Jackson and co. made a huge mistake following Ron into the crowd, especially since it seems that at least Jackson was not there to break it up, but to get involved. As for the fan on the court, he didn't belong there at all, and it's his fault for being so stupid. Despite the fact that he didn't seem to threaten Artest at all (physically,) I think Artest's cold cocking him, while wrong, was much more forgivable than the trip into the seats. 128727[/snapback] Fair enough. This is a tough issue and I don't think there is a clear answer. Another thing that isn't talked about a lot in this, which I also think is wrong, is that the suspension is costing Artest 10 MILLION DOLLARS. That is a lot of money for a fine when he is likely not even going to court or anything. And it's total bullschitt to say oh, these guys make so much money he can afford it, or they are not worth it. That's such crap. 10 million is a LOT of money. Capitalism is America and he got what the going rate was for his services. Vernon Maxwell went into the stands and after a fan and punched him and got 10 games, didn't he? He had at least as bad or a worse reputation than Artest does. Rodman kicked the cameraman and got 11 games. This just went too far. I think he should have got 20-30 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kgun5 Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 This is one of the biggest points i disagree with. In this case, which is what makes it so rare, Stern actually had to consider the safety of his paying customers. Now, let's just say that this was Steve Nash that got hit with the water and went ape-s#it. Ok, he did, he snapped, but he has never before done anything like this. There is a good chance he just snapped, it is out of character, and it most likely won't happen again. Let's suspend him for 30 games. End of story. Artest is a constant problem. He had eight flagrant fouls last season, got fined for two obscene gestures, got into a fight with Raja Bell and a verbal fight with Pat Riley that was this close to turning violent. So now, if we suspend Artest for 10 games, and let him back, what will that do? NOTHING. He is a loose cannon that CANNOT CONTROL HIMSELF. He is like a giant version of a kid with ADD. He needs help. Hopefully the NBA will get him into an ager management course or something. 128728[/snapback] I tend to agree with this, but only if it's consistant. A thug is a thug whether he's white, black, a superstar, a sixth man, etc...I'd be really angry if the NBA wavered on someone's suspension due to their status or some other self-serving reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kgun5 Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Fair enough. This is a tough issue and I don't think there is a clear answer. Another thing that isn't talked about a lot in this, which I also think is wrong, is that the suspension is costing Artest 10 MILLION DOLLARS. That is a lot of money for a fine when he is likely not even going to court or anything. And it's total bullschitt to say oh, these guys make so much money he can afford it, or they are not worth it. That's such crap. 10 million is a LOT of money. Capitalism is America and he got what the going rate was for his services. 128769[/snapback] You're not just whistling dixie. $10 million is a ton of money, even to an NBA star (though I heard he was losing $5 million, not that it matters.) I guess my only thought on this issue is that we often see fines handed out that barely gain the notice of a player. This one will, although I know that's not the point you were getting at. I'm guessing that there will be a settlement through the player's association involving some of the money Artest is to lose. The NBA doesn't want to go to court over this any more than Artest does. It was able to make it's strong stance to the public, so I'm guessing they'll be willing to deal with Artest's money situation behind closed doors. Vernon Maxwell went into the stands and after a fan and punched him and got 10 games, didn't he? He had at least as bad or a worse reputation than Artest does. Rodman kicked the cameraman and got 11 games. This just went too far. I think he should have got 20-30 games. 128769[/snapback] I have to claim ignorance here. I'm not aware of the Maxwell occurance, as I'm more of a college basketball fan. I DO remember the Rodman issue, and I remember thinking that he should have gotten more than 11 games. Rodman hit a guy unprovoked, plain and simple. I wish Artest had taken care of things the way the cameraman did...Get your justice through the law. I think the fact that Rodman's kick was short and sweet, and started no chain reaction, came into play. I don't think it should have, however. I see a slight difference between a cameraman and a fan, but certainly not 62 games worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kgun5 Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 So now, if we suspend Artest for 10 games, and let him back, what will that do? NOTHING. He is a loose cannon that CANNOT CONTROL HIMSELF. He is like a giant version of a kid with ADD. He needs help. Hopefully the NBA will get him into an ager management course or something. ------------------- If Stern thinks the guy has anger problems then calling him out in front of billions of people and not offering any help other than "I'm taking your job away for a year" is going to help this guy? Yes, he needs help. But, I can't see how Stern is helping the problem. Treat him like an adult and talk to him about it one-on-one. 128767[/snapback] In a perfect world, maybe he does. Between the NBA being a business, the public's demand for a swift resolution to everything, and the media's willingness to jump on anything that could be construed as weak leadership, I don't think it was possible. As I mentioned to Kelly about Artest's salary, I think the discussions behind closed doors will be a lot more sympathetic to Ron and his needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 In this case, which is what makes it so rare, Stern actually had to consider the safety of his paying customers. 128728[/snapback] Perhaps Stern's paying customers should think about their own safety! I've never seen a player go into the stands because fans were behaving themselves. This is the problem I have. All this does is reinforce certain fans' beliefs that they are protected by the league and even entitled to behave like the biggest assclowns in the world. It only reinforces to them that they can smugly sit up there and do whatever they want because it is the player who is at fault if it escalates. You cannot have it this way and expect that these incidents will not occur every so often, no matter how many games you suspend a guy for. The fans, security and the NBA were at least 50% responsible for this ugliness, because they continue to promote this notion that fans have a right to get loaded and to be as obnoxious and beligerent as they want to be because they pay the bills. Until such time as leagues of any sport start cracking down on this sort of behavior, they need to share the burden equally. This is the reason I cannot buy into this full season suspension for Artest, no matter how politically correct it sounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kgun5 Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Perhaps Stern's paying customers should think about their own safety! I've never seen a player go into the stands because fans were behaving themselves. This is the problem I have. All this does is reinforce certain fans' beliefs that they are protected by the league and even entitled to behave like the biggest assclowns in the world. It only reinforces to them that they can smugly sit up there and do whatever they want because it is the player who is at fault if it escalates. You cannot have it this way and expect that these incidents will not occur every so often, no matter how many games you suspend a guy for. The fans, security and the NBA were at least 50% responsible for this ugliness, because they continue to promote this notion that fans have a right to get loaded and to be as obnoxious and beligerent as they want to be because they pay the bills. Until such time as leagues of any sport start cracking down on this sort of behavior, they need to share the burden equally. This is the reason I cannot buy into this full season suspension for Artest, no matter how politically correct it sounds. 128995[/snapback] Don't you think security for NBA games will be nazi-esque for the forseeable future? I'm guessing that people will be thrown out for the tiniest of infractions, and arrested if they don't comply immediately. Any fan that tries to somehow recreate this in order to get someone else suspended will likely be VERY sorry he did. There will be reprocussions on both sides of the mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Don't you think security for NBA games will be nazi-esque for the forseeable future? I'm guessing that people will be thrown out for the tiniest of infractions, and arrested if they don't comply immediately. Any fan that tries to somehow recreate this in order to get someone else suspended will likely be VERY sorry he did. There will be reprocussions on both sides of the mess. 129010[/snapback] As there should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 The funny thing is it really didn't have too much to do with security being "lax". It wasn't lax, you just don't go to an NBA game expecting a fan to provoke a fight with a player and then have 50 people brawling. I really don't think security needs to be increased. Maybe in Detroit though, their fans are thugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 What? Oh, yah, his adrenaline was really flowing, lounging on the table... Sitting up, smiling, louging back down... Attempting to give an impromptu interview... Actually quite the opposite... RA looked calm and cool as a cucumber. He is a loon... Look at the video! 128317[/snapback] Well, I can't personally speak for Ron Artest's physiology. But one thing I do know is that adrenaline in most humans does not instantly or even quickly dissipate from the body. What sort of defense mechanism would it be if you needed to ramp everything back up every time danger re-presents itself under a stressful situation. I have experienced that many times, where I have gotten the adrenaline pumping over a physically and psychologically stressful situation (such as a fight in a game). And even though the situation that created it has seemingly passed, and I am trying to calm myself, that I am still amped from the adrenaline for some time afterward. In that case, the anger/rage/fear subsides to giddiness, but the body is still ready to respond to further danger for some time afterward. While he may have appeared cool as a cucumber, if he is like most humans, the adrenaline was still there. Moreover, I agree that Artest is a hot head, meaning that he needs anger management. Some people are more easily aroused into this adrenaline state than others. And while a cup of beverage thrown at him would seem hardly a danger, that fan was asking for it knowing that Artest is who he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kgun5 Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 As there should be. 129026[/snapback] The funny thing is it really didn't have too much to do with security being "lax". It wasn't lax, you just don't go to an NBA game expecting a fan to provoke a fight with a player and then have 50 people brawling. I really don't think security needs to be increased. Maybe in Detroit though, their fans are thugs. 129030[/snapback] Whether it should be or not, it will be. In that sense, I think the arguement that fans will somehow gain motivation to do this on a grander scale (or do it at all) is flawed. The fans will pay for this within the realm of game attendance. I tend to think the added security isn't needed in practice, but as a deterrent, it's important that they show they wont let this crap happen again. Anyway, this is going to hurt the fans that aren't crazed lunatics, the Pistons, the Pacers, but most of all, the Pacer fans. It's pretty sad for sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Maybe in Detroit though, their fans are thugs. 129030[/snapback] Sure they are. People are people, especially in large cities or at large gatherings. You'd know that, if you'd take your member out of the sheep long enough to get some life experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Sure they are. People are people, especially in large cities or at large gatherings. You'd know that, if you'd take your member out of the sheep long enough to get some life experience. 129052[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I'm not "hurt" by it. I'm just pissed off at the league and their continued double standard. If these guys played for the Knicks their sentences wouldn't have been half as long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF_in_Indiana Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Sure they are. People are people, especially in large cities or at large gatherings. You'd know that, if you'd take your member out of the sheep long enough to get some life experience. 129052[/snapback] I've only been to ONE large gathering that ever had any sort of violent behavior and that's Woodstock '99. I've been to hundreds of sporting events and never have I seen a group of fans act like the ones in Detroit the other night. Maybe you are the one that should stay away from the sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I've only been to ONE large gathering that ever had any sort of violent behavior and that's Woodstock '99. 129069[/snapback] Woodstock? wasn't that near a farm...bahhhhhhhhhhhhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts