Discussion in 'Everything NBA' started by mikhail1973, Aug 17, 2007.
There is a difference, that is why the suspensions were of different length.
That is not what I meant. If the refs did gamble than league has no alternative but to let them go. That is if they stick to their principles and rules.
SI.com - Writers - Marty Burns: Did old-boy network help Donaghy? - Thursday August 23, 2007 1:16PM
Is that what their published rule is? That if the refs gamble on anything, they are terminated? No warning system or anything?
If that is the case, then I agree with you.
That is what I read in several sources online that refs are prohibited from gambling and the termination will result if...
There also seems like there are a lot of bball players from Compton.
From a population of 93,000, there are 4 current NBA players (Prince, Afflalo, Chandler, and B. Davis).
Since only 1 in every 909,090 Americans is currently in the NBA, then that means that Compton has produce 39 times the expected number of players.
Well, let's hope the anti-Pistons refs are goners then.
Remember the guys that we couldn't win against in the playoffs a couple years ago? See ya.
Great analogy.........we all know there is a difference but stu and crew never listen to anyone but their precious rule book. I am so eager to see how little stern will get out of this mess.
Brilliant. Post of the day.
What are you guys talking about? They didn't punish players in the same way for punching other players as they did for leaving the bench area.
The rule is meant to keep players from entering the fray and escalating the problem. They are not being hyper technical with the enforcement... that is what the rule was meant to prevent- guys leaving the bench during a fight.
As far as the refs and the gambling. They should punish them exactly how the rule says that they will.
And Donaghy resigned, right? So the NBA didn't even punish him. If you want the NBA to hold the blackjack playing refs to the same standard, then you are out of luck, because they didn't do a thing.
Stern's position on the suspensions were that everyone knew the rules, and they had to enforce them, even if the intent to escalate a fight was not necessarily there.
Stern was adamant that every player knows not to leave the bench to escalate an altercation.
Mikhail's point is that if there is a rule, that prohibits the refs from all but betting on horses, and they have violated it, then Stern, by his own standard, would appear to be compelled to mete out justice, based upon the fact that the refs "knew the rules".
It was ludicrous when Stern suspended Amare and Boris, and it will be ludicrous this time around. But it's David Stern's world and we are just living in it.
Why was Amare's suspension ludicrous? It is a similar rule to the one in the NFL where you can't take your helmet off on the field.
Why didn't the other Suns players get off the bench when the fight broke out? Was it because they didn't give a crap about their teammates?
I agree that the refs should be punished, but certainly not fired.
And just a dose of reality here, what a prick Donaghy is. He's ratting out other refs for going to the casino after he gets caught ruining the reputation of all NBA refs? Maybe he should tell on them for cheating on their wives while they were on the road too.
The ounce of credibility that stern and his troops have will be gone if a ref was proven to be in violation of their contract (which prohibits gambling other than horse racing in the summer) and they were not fired immediately. It does not matter how many refs that are involved. Using inexperienced refs would probably hurt, but what other alternatives could be employed.
I would be curious to see the clause in the contract.
Also, I'm wondering if any NBA refs have been warned/ fined behind closed doors for violated this provision, or other ones in the contract. In other words, has there been a precedent for more lenient penalties than termination.
As much as I would like to see the entire refereeing system revamped, I think it would be a shame for a man's career to end because he engaged in recreational gambling that was not tied to the NBA.
Oh geez Tay, don't cry for the refs on this one.
They have a contract, it's a well paid, high profile position, with the opportunity to earn more on the side by conducting summer basketball camps and giving hot tips to bookies.
All Stern asks is that they abstain from playing/participating in games of chance for profit or loss. They're welcome to indulge their competitive side by placing Gentleman's bets on the golf course or playing marbles.
Don't you have some restrictions on your outside of work behavior that could be or lead to a conflict of interest with your profession?
As far as I am concerned, playing Uno for nickels is the gateway to a serious gambling addiction. One day, you're screaming Uno and baptizing yourself with pocket change, the next day you're at a street corner phone booth, calling Louis The Hammer to place a $50k bet on the Atlanta Hawks.
If it's the rule then I don't see it being shameful. They knew what they were getting into. If the rules say NO gambling I think the refs understand what that means..they just didn't listen.
Ain't that the truth? It's a slippery slope once you get started. My Grandma used to have a "friendly" wager on her scrabble games ...two years later we found her in a smoke filled church basement with 12 bingo cards in front of her and a cigarette hanging from her lips.
If they were betting on dice, then that is not a conflict of interest, just a conflict of contract.
Like when a guy Rothleisberger gets caught violating his motorcyle clause. Even though they could have, the Steelers didn't fire him. Did the Steelers lose all credibility following their decision to not enforce the terms of contract?
Violating terms of a contract results in a default. When there is a default, then it gives the other party the option to take remedies... if they want to.
A counter example to the big Ben crash is the Jay Williams incident. The default under the contract for motorcycle riding allowed them to quit paying him. If he would have still been able to perform, then they would have let it slide.
I guess the problem is that I haven't seen the rule that says that if a referee is in violation of any aspect of the contract that it must result in termination.
If it says it, then I'm with you. Show me.
Separate names with a comma.