Just not six games. Heck, THREE would be too much, I think.

I’ve seen the replay many times. Throwing your hands over an opponents “shoulders” is definitely a dirty foul. Did he make a play on the ball? How was he expecting to get the ball by placing his arms over his opponent’s head?

When you don’t make a play on the ball and just go after the player, it’s called a flagrant and dirty foul.

By the way, after “merely” placing his arms over Smith’s shoulders, he followed through like he was taking a golf swing, and that’s why people are saying he pulled him down by his neck.

If you can’t respond without the insults you will be banned.

He chastises the commish for letting Thomas off the hook, comparing it with Stern’s refusal to hold Detroit’s management or fans accountable for the Palace Brawl. Although I agree with Hollinger that Stern erred in that respect in his response to the Detroit fight, I totally disagree with Hollinger about how Stern handled Thomas.

From Stern’s point of view, suspending Thomas does little. It’s at most a symbolic gesture. Banning a player from playing is meaningful. Denver may well miss the playoffs because of the suspensions meted out to Smith and Anthony. Suspending a coach wouldn’t be such a big loss (particularly for the Knicks). Could Herb Williams really get this team to be worse? Apart from pacifying the scores of writers and fans who loathe Thomas, suspending him accomplishes little, especially considering that no one can PROVE that Thomas “ordered the code red.” Unless you were in the huddle all you know for sure is that he ran his mouth to Anthony, a faux pas frequently committed by coaches.

But, as I remarked yesterday, it would be foolish to underestimate Stern’s response of fining both teams. Hollinger, not surprisingly, misses the big picture ridiculing the fines. The small amount of money, by NBA standards, is not what’s at issue. What is at issue is that Stern–and mind you, my almost automatic response is to disagree with him–has put the onus for policing players’ on-court behavior BACK onto the teams where it belongs.

If you look at this set of suspensions and fines in total, it sends all the right messages. The league has basically said it is no longer in the business of deciphering who started what and who is responding to it. If players act out–as a provocateur or escalator–they will get a double-digit game suspension without consideration for its impact on the team’s season. Furthermore, will now punish *ownership* if the owners can’t get their coaching staffs to exercise sufficient control over players to prevent this behavior. The $500,000 gets the owners’ attention and lays the baseline. The fines will likely escalate from there.

I’m not sure what else you could really ask from the commish. His primary, if not sole interest is in squashing this nonsense. Given the realities of various political constraints, this is as close as he could probably come to instituting the NCAA’s fighting rule, which cleaned up fighting overnight.

Hollinger, as is increasingly common with him, misses the forest for the trees. He quibbles over the number of games Stern gives Anthony, whose actions are frankly the least excusable of *anyone* involved.

As Knick fans we are so used to Dolan throwing away $500,000 between the elevator and the limo that we are jaded. $500k is a hefty fine for the worst environmental polluters. It’s nothing to turn your nose up at. So do not be confused, Stern got the attention of the owners. There will be more than a few “come to Jesus” meetings between owners and coaches this week.

Thanks for the link (and for the e-mail telling that guy to settle down). The guy lost his credibility with me when he absolves the Detroit fans of any blame in the Palace Brawl, placing it solely on the players. (He also chastises John Saunders for having the temerity to be critical of people throwing chairs, dumping water onto players and coaches, and generally making asses of themselves.)
—
Yesterday I commented on CourtsideTimes.net that Mike Breen is the “voice of impending doom” while Clyde’s demeanor never changes no matter how wacky the circumstances. They’re a real “Laurel and Hardy” act. I can’t believe this guy is dissing Clyde. If you have NBA League Pass, and want to hear truly horrible basketball analysis, tune into Tommy Heinsen (sp?) do a Celts game. (Their play-by-play guy is excellent.) It’s like watching the game with a drunk, 70-year old frat boy screeching at the refs.

Anyway, you know you’re hard up for a story to beat deadline when your “angle” is that the color commentator didn’t display sufficient outrage.

“So he got 6 games for what? Getting punched in the face twice?”

No genius. He got six games for the aftermath, not the foul. If there was no aftermath, he would have gotten 1 game. No more. Why? Because it was NOT THAT HARD OF A FOUL!!! Not dirty! A hard foul. They happen on a regular basis. Go watch the replay. Like I’ve been saying since Sunday, it was the fall that made it *look* bad.

I’m just amazed that the victim got more games, when all he did was retaliate.