|
It’s like the old joke—you can get more with a gun and a warm smile than you can with just a warm smile. A team that is talented and cheats is more likely to win against a team that is just talented.
By D. W. O’Dell
When I go to a sporting event, I expect to see the sport I paid to see. I’m not a hockey fan, but it puzzles me how every four years people wax eloquent about how wonderful Olympic hockey is, with its grace and artistry, but then nothing is done to stop fights from breaking out at hockey games in the NHL because “fans go for the violence.” That is assuming anyone still goes to NHL games; heaven knows no one watches them on television.
There is a long history of fighting among athletes, probably because of the high testosterone level possessed by men who make a living as pro athletes. However, unlike the other major sports, the NBA realized that modern athletes are SO big and SO strong (and had SO little protection with those flimsy uniforms) that fighting could result in injury. The point was driven home in 1977 when Kermit Washington landed a right cross on Rudy Tomjanovich’s chin, breaking his jaw and nearly killing him.
Thus came about the NBA rule that requires an automatic one game suspension for any player leaving the bench during an altercation. Let me say at the outset I wish other sports would adopt a similar rule. I hate baseball rhubarbs where players stream out onto the field from the dugout or, even worse, the bullpen. They meander about, yelling, posturing, occasionally slapping an opposing player like a Foxy Boxing participant, and basically interrupting the game indefinitely. I say if a fight breaks out on the field, it’s the batter versus the nine fielders; it’s not fair, but given how little actual violence occurs during these “fights” it’s best to discourage them.
However, even good rules can be put to a bad purpose. Thus it was in the NBA playoff series between the Spurs and the Suns, which the Spurs managed to win by cheating. Or maybe it was just being clever, repeatedly beating on Steve Nash, the Suns best player, until they provoked a response from the Suns’ other players. After Robert Horry threw Steve Nash into the scorer’s table in a move reminiscent of WWE wrestling, two Suns players, Boris Diaw and their leading scorer Amare Stoudemire, moved towards Horry. For this the two Suns players were suspended for the next game, ensuring that the Spurs would win the series despite an inferior regular season record.
NBA Commissioner David Stern said he had no choice but to issue the suspensions. Right. First, he’s the Commissioner, he can do anything he wants. Second, all rules are subject to interpretation, even hard and fast rules like this one. He could have found that no altercation was talking place, therefore making the rule inapplicable. He could have said that the automatic one game suspension applied to regular season games, but post season games were inherently different. He could have said a determination will be made but until it is the players can continue to play, then put off holding a hearing until the Spurs lost, as they obviously would have had Stoudemire been allowed to play.
But no, he decided that San Antonio would go to the NBA Finals and basically gave the series to the Spurs. The Spurs, which had the third best record in the West, are in the NBA finals thanks to Stern’s decree.
It’s like the old joke—you can get more with a gun and a warm smile than you can with just a warm smile. A team that is talented and cheats is more likely to win against a team that is just talented. The Spurs did all they could to take out Steve Nash: his nose was broken (although that did look like his fault), he was kneed in the groin, and he was tossed off the court. They couldn’t get Nash out, but they took out Stoudemire and that was enough to give the edge to the spurs.
An ESPN poll indicated that almost ¾ of those responding thought the suspension of Stoudemire and Diaw was unfair, yet when the owners considered changing the rule, they voted against it. This will only encourage teams to have their scrubs go out and physically attack the star of the other team, hoping to provoke a similar reaction. One can only hope that no one ends up with a broken jaw.
*
*
*
I can’t help but add a quick comment on the recent suspension of Cub’s manager Lou Pinella for arguing with an umpire. Of course, being Pinella, he didn’t just argue. He ranted, bellowed, and (in the time honored tradition of managers since Earl Weaver and Billy Martin) kicked dirt on the umpire.
What does this accomplish, except delay the game and set a bad example for kids? Is the umpire going to say, “By Jove, I thought he was out, but now that you’ve kicked dirt upon my shoes I’ll call the runner safe!”
Managerial tirades are just as annoying as ball players fighting. They keep the game from being played and undermine the efforts of parents trying to teach their children good sportsmanship. If a manager has an issue with an umpire’s interpretation of the rules, is it too much to ask that he make his point without kicking dirt on the umpire, or heaving the bases into the outfield?
I respect a manager’s right to free speech, but behaving childishly is just delaying the game for no good reason. This never happens in football, maybe because there “delay of game” is an actual penalty. Managers who delay baseball games with their tiresome tirades should be suspended and fined more heavily, so the rest of us can get on with enjoying the game.
|
