First, let me go on the record as saying that in the event that a vote comes up to change the rules about suspensions for players leaving the bench, I will vote against changing it.
Why ? Because its incredibly simple to educate players about the rule. Its a rule they fully understand and they understand the consequences of violating the rule. That makes the NBA stronger because it removes uncertainty. Can it result in a game(s) being impacted , yes. However, that impact results from an action a player knew violated the rules and was a mistake. There is no uncertainty about it. All they had to do was not leave the bench.
I actually think that more rules need to be iron clad like the "don't leave the bench rule". Whenever we can remove discretion in enforcement from the NBA the game is better for it.
Which, of course, is the exact opposite conclusion that Matt Fenwick drew over at BOA when it came to the NHL's disciplinary process. I think it's safe to say that Matt, whatever he might think about the way Colin Campbell does his job believes that the discretion he wields in his role is a good thing for the sport, and promotes fairness and justice in the judgements the league hands down when doling out supplemental discipline.
[W]hy doesn't this apply to the NHL? How are videos of stick swingings and brawling on the ice zipping around the world a boon to the NHL?
Why indeed. In retrospect, I probably should have named my post differently, perhaps slugging it as an explanation rather than as a defense. Rather than just tapping out my own response, I think the Bill Simmons Page 2 piece I linked to yesterday sheds a lot of light on how I feel about the different approaches inside the NBA and the NHL:
Once upon a time, these guys had a code of honor. They played hard, respected the game, defended their teammates, and if anyone stepped out of line, there was always someone that would take care of them -- whether it was another player, a referee, a coach or whatever. When fights or altercations happened, they were considered natural side effects of a physical sport. When two players talked smack, it was considered a good thing, a sign that the game was heating up, that we were potentially headed for a more competitive place.
Case in point: March 26, 1997*, Red Wings vs. Avalanche, probably the most exciting regular season game in recent NHL memory. There were heroes and villians, drama, rivalry and a late season game that mattered. It was the NHL's perfect storm:
Here's a question to ask -- March 26, 1997, good or bad for the NHL?
Again, Simmons:
So don't blame the NBA higher-ups for the way they interpreted that stupid, idiotic, foolish, moronic, brainless, unintelligent, foolhardy, imprudent, thoughtless, obtuse and thickheaded rule. Blame them for having the rule itself. Blame them for allowing the league to morph into something that doesn't quite resemble basketball anymore. Blame them for a league in which basketball players aren't totally allowed to think and act like basketball players and teammates aren't totally allowed to think and act like teammates.
If David Stern ran the NHL, we would have never had a night like March 26, 1997. And I think the NHL would have been the poorer for it.
Here's another way to look at it: In an attempt to protect the NBA's revenue streams, Stern has locked down on the league's players so tightly that he's actually changed the nature of the game in a way that had denuded the core of its entertainment value.
Ironically, what Simmons is really saying here is that in attempting to protect the league as a whole, Stern is actually killing off part of what made it so popular in the first place. Safe to say, I think there's merit in that argument.
________________________________________________
*If Darren McCarty was still a Red Wing, would Chris Pronger have made a different decision on Tomas Holmstrom the other night?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ericmcerlain.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/7530
Comments
People forget that the NHL did do the same thing to curb bench-clearing brawls. The NHL hasn't had a bench-clearer since...oh...1989.
"Old time hockey, eh, coach?"
Posted by:
at May 18, 2007 10:28 PM
Not that I'm complaining or anything, but...man, was no one at all thrown out? I thought for simultaneous fights, goalie fights, what have you, most of those guys would be gone, but either that rule didn't exist, or the refs (wisely) chose to throw it out the window for that evening and give everyone five.
And yeah, the NHL did decide to curb bench-emptiers with a nice, hefty sentence, and in general, it was a good idea, but there are times, like when Peters went after Biron, where it is, in principle, the "right" thing to do.
Posted by:
at May 21, 2007 12:53 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in,
.
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
12:13 PM
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.ericmcerlain.com/offwingopinion/nav-commenters.gif)