In defense of the Spurs

Much has been said about the suspension of Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw, and the “dirty” play of the Spurs during the playoff series. Phoenix fans are screaming for Robert Horry’s blood, and they’re furious because the Spurs gained an unfair advantage in the suspension—despite the fact that it was Nash who got fouled hard. Many people are also criticizing the league for delivering an “unfair” suspension, which could change the complexion of the series.

I’ve kept quiet long enough, so I think it’s about time I put in my $0.02.

Robert Horry threw a cheap shot—perhaps his biggest and most memorable shot in recent memory. He reasons that he plays “old school,” and this is what players of his generation do. And you know what? He may be right. I’ve seen Karl Malone throw worse elbows than that hip-check we just saw in Game 4. I’ve seen Larry Bird and Michael Jordan throw cheap shots during the playoffs. Heck, I’ve seen Steve Nash make an extension at Kobe’s groin, among other things.

Another asterisk
But what I really hate about what Horry did is the effect it had on the series. If the Spurs win over the Suns, they’ll add another asterisk to their history. The first is the 1999 championship, which many consider a fluke because of the NBA lockout. If San Antonio wins because the Suns lost Stoudemire for one game, we won’t really know who the better team is.

Then again, Dallas is probably better than both clubs but they’re already eliminated.

What happened after Horry’s foul is even more interesting. Diaw and Stoudemire walked into the court while Horry and Bell were close to blows. Nash, in all his classiness, wanted a piece of Horry and I can’t blame him because it was a really hard foul.

A foul that’s as hard and cheap as the ones I’ve seen Jordan, Stockton, and Charles Oakley commit.

Anyways, what Diaw and Stoudemire did during the fracas was wrong, and the rest of the Phoenix bench/coaching staff should have stopped them from walking into the court because I’m sure they’re aware of The Rule.

According to NBA Rule No. 12 – Fouls and Penalties, Section VII – Fines, Article C:

“During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $50,000.”

I think this is pretty clear. Webster defines “altercation” as a noisy heated angry dispute; also: noisy controversy; synonym see QUARREL.

Was there a noisy, heated, angry dispute between Bell and Horry? Yes. In fact, Nash also wanted to have at Horry for knocking him down hard. Ergo, this is an altercation, making the actions of Diaw and Stoudemire punishable by suspension. It may not be fair, but it was the right thing for the league to do. How can an organization have credibility if they are easily swayed by public sentiments over an important, zero-tolerance rule?

So where’s the unfair part?

You mean the time Tim Duncan and Bruce Bowen walked into the court because Elson and Jones got entangled? Let me ask you this: was there an “altercation”? No. Elson was whining to the refs, but there was no fight. End of story.

I’m also surprised to see Bell get furious at Horry for the foul. Sure, his teammate may have been knocked down, but wasn’t he suspended a year ago for his clothesline on Kobe? Sounds like another day for Bell if he committed a similar foul. I think that clothesline was even more vicious than the Horry hip-check, but that’s just me.

Lying through his teeth
I consider Stoudemire lucky because he didn’t get any more fines or additional days of suspension for lying through his teeth during the post-game press conference. Amare reasoned that he was going to the scorer’s table to get in the game. This was an outright lie because he had five fouls, and the possession after Nash’s fastbreak (and eventual collision with Horry’s hip) would result in Spurs ball—meaning Stoudemire would have to defend.

Defend with five fouls? That’s ridiculous.

In addition, D’Antoni never instructed Amare to enter the game during this period because he was livid of the Horry foul and was giving the referee a piece of his mind.

The decision was fair because the NBA is just enforcing its rules. I still think Horry was out of line when he committed his flagrant foul, but the San Antonio bench was smart enough to stay away from the court and Diaw and Amare were not.

Questionable calls
The last thing I want to hear right now is accusations of officials making (or not making) calls in favor of the Spurs. That’s preposterous because if you really want to get anal about the calls, Phoenix wouldn’t have won Game 4 because the referees were making a lot of questionable whistles against the Spurs, causing Duncan to get into foul trouble. Because of this, Phoenix whittled down the lead and eventually won in the end even if they shouldn’t have.

I’d say the officiating in the Spurs vs. Suns series is just about right.

The refs make the calls as they see it. Yes, they ignore many calls, but this is the playoffs. Fouls are harder, there is more urgency in the way teams play.

As basketball fans, we will always notice the calls made against the team we’re rooting for. The truth about calls is that if you’re neutral, you’ll notice that whistles are usually even in the course of a game. Steve Kerr attests to this in his blog.

The physical play between the two teams is natural because this is the playoffs. It’s “win or go home fishing” with Kenny. But you know what? It’s not right to say which team is dirty because both clubs are guilty of doing these tactics at some point.

If you hate the Spurs for being “dirty,” you’re just jealous.