 General Basketball WiretapNBA Injustice?Be honest, how fair is today's NBA? We have 'superstar calls' which favor a certain team over another out of sheer presence. A call could go one way or another depending on who your name is or what team you play for. Just ask Byron Russell of the Utah Jazz or Pacer Brad Miller and they’ll tell you. There is some inconsistency on the basketball court that can be accepted. For starters different referees could call identical scenarios differently out of differences in opinion, and they also have to make a decision in a split second minus the luxury of instant replay like us folks at home. But this is just one side of the NBA, and should the punishment department of NBA headquarters receive the same benefit of the doubt? They have time to review incidents many times over from many different angles, having discussions before drawing conclusions. Do they use precedents to help form the basis of their outcomes, or are their conclusions purely case by case? It is inconsistencies in this area which has Peter Vecsey of the New York Post up in arms in his latest column. Stu Jackson, the ex-Grizzlies head man who morphed into the NBA‘s Senior Vice President of Basketball Operations, is the person who hands out the punishments to players. He has been far from consistent. Take last week’s game between the Indiana Pacers and the Detroit Pistons for instance. With 1:16 left in the Pistons win over the Pacers, Detroit up by 22 at the time, Corliss Williamson drives baseline past center Brad Miller. Jermaine O’Neal comes over to help, banged hard into Williamson and was called for the flagarant foul. O’Neal caught Williamson’s leg and hip on the way down, preventing him from falling and hurting himself, but Corliss still took exception to the contact and proceeded to throw the ball hard at O’Neal from only a few feet away in retaliation. The ball hit O’Neal on the shoulder, and he couldn't believe what had just happened. The result: O’Neal confronted Williamson and Pistons peacemakers Ben Wallace and Michael Curry, while a Pacers trio of Jonathan Bender, Bruno Sundov and Primoz Brezec all left the bench. Jermaine O’Neal was fined $10,000 and was suspended two games for his part in the altercation, while Bender, Sundov and Brezec all received $5,000 fines and 1 game suspensions for leaving the bench. Williamson? He received a $5,000 fine and no loss of court time despite sparking the controversy with his reaction. Had he not thrown the ball at O’Neal the chances are that Jermaine would have been accessed with the flagarant and both teams would have proceeded as if nothing happened. The major points here? Ball thrown at player, no suspension. Vecsey takes a look at the other projectile related suspensions in the NBA this season then summarizes the punishment scale which he refers to as ‘Jackson Justice’: • Throw a TV on the floor in the direction of no one in particular and you get suspended two games and fined $10,000 • Flick a wad of gum and get one game and a fine • Hurl a fully inflated basketball at an opponent five feet away and you lose $5,000 in chump change but no court time Sound fair? It all comes down to one word, inconsistency, although there may be another extremely powerful word that Jackson has now exposed. That word, of course, is precedent. To be consistent and fair Jackson should now treat each ball-throwing incident just as he has for the Williamson-O’Neal fiasco, regardless of the ramifications. We can see it now. Shaq fouls player. Player throws ball at Shaq. Shaq retaliates, opening up a suspension possibility. Player is fined $5,000 but misses no games. Who needs Hack-a-Shaq when you can eliminate him all together? The precedent has now been set folks, so it may not be as far fetched as you think. General Basketball, Detroit Pistons, Indiana Pacers Read the Full Story Discuss Send Feedback No Easy Path to New OrleansThere is still no telling, Marc Stein of the Dallas Morning News says, whether the Hornets will be able to move to New Orleans. David Stern has put up roadblocks, including a recent requirement that the Hornets sell 1,200 more club seats in New Orleans before the Relocation Committee gives the nod. But, even if they were to pass that hurdle, the Hornets would still need a simple majority of the Board of Governors on April 8th and 9th. With the luxury tax looming, the profitability of the Hornets may be the difference between a tax being imposed or not. While a team in a new city may take some time to build profitability, a new owner for a team remaining in Charlotte -- like BET billionaire Robert Johnson -- is likely to bring fans flocking back to Charlotte Coliseum. Charlotte Bobcats, General Basketball Read the Full Story Discuss Send Feedback Buy Tickets Potential of Inactive ListThis could be just the first step," said one league source. "I think the players association might be afraid of this, but the next step would be to use the inactive list to put players in the developmental league." That's not such a bad idea, at least not as long as the teams are willing to pay the guy the NBA's minimum salary. A few frugal team owners may object to the new inactive list proposal. These are the owners who simply carry 12 players and forget about fiddling around with the injured list to carry extra players. With the new deal, the owners could be criticized by players for not being willing to spend money to fill a few more uniforms. Read the Full Story Discuss Send Feedback Mar 2002 Archive
|