CaptainHook Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I leave it here with your own words: 'Forseeable? Yes.' In other words he's responsible, and rightfully took the brunt of the blame: no go in stands, no riot. 572728[/snapback] It was forseeable when you sit back and think about it. In a split second, Ron made a bad decision. For that he is being suspended for 73 games, and over $5 million. It is b.s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighKite Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I agree, HK. He must have had a pretty good idea where it came from though, he was just one seat off, 572726[/snapback] I believe he knew he was 1 seat off too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Now who is making silly comparison? 572730[/snapback] That's the level of your logic, as an example. He knowingly did something wrong that spun out of control but his intentions were alright so he shouldn't get punished properly. Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 It was forseeable when you sit back and think about it. In a split second, Ron made a bad decision. For that he is being suspended for 73 games, and over $5 million. It is b.s. 572732[/snapback] Being held responsible and made an example of to prevent this from EVER happening again is BS? Okey Dokey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 (edited) We just disagree on what "properly" is. . . I think 30 games would EASILY get ANY player's attention. Edited November 24, 2004 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 If Tom Brady did this, you'd be all over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 From an outsider/inbiased standpoint, Artest got the least he deserved. All else aside, the man singlehandedly incited a riot at an NBA game. Ratings are down, and people are talking about not wanting to go to games because they don't feel safe. This will be enormously damaging to the league, and banishment for Artest would be appropriate if only to show fans that this kind of thing will never be tolerated under any circumstance. The other side of that coin is that it is mandatory that the NBA go after the idiots that threw things and that ran onto the court, etc.. They should prosecute to the fullest extent of the law and publicise to also show the fans that this type of behavior will not be tolerated at NBA games. I do not expect any kind of fan carry over at the TG game, because I expect troopers on horseback galore. I also expect the detroit players to be really up for this game after the Artest jersey thing. Maybe I should rethink my weekly blitz picks... Nah. They are still the Lions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 From an outsider/inbiased standpoint, Artest got the least he deserved. All else aside, the man singlehandedly incited a riot at an NBA game. 572881[/snapback] Ben Wallace started the fight on the court and a Pistons fan threw a cup of ice in Artest's face. So saying that Artest "single-handedly incited a riot" is flat-out wrong. Detroit's idiot fans are as much to blame, if not more, than Artest. I don't condone what Artest did, but still believe that the suspensions are too stiff (given that the players and organizations are also subject to criminal charges). I think that they should all be cut in half. However, I do understand that the length of Artest's suspension had a lot to do with his past actions. That said, I think a half-season suspension without pay would've been more appropriate. Ratings are down, and people are talking about not wanting to go to games because they don't feel safe. Right, the POOR FANS are afraid. :violin: If they wouldn't throw things at the players or run onto the court, they'd have nothing to be afraid of. The Detroit fans just took the "Obnoxious A$$holes" title away from Philly. But, hey, they got what they wanted in the end! If the suspensions are upheld, the Pacers will no longer be conterders in the East. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 I thought this thread was going to be about how Detroit was going to beat Indy on Thankgiving Day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aqualung Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 This was done so this kind of conduct will never happen again. If players know that they will be deducted 5-8 million dollars for antics like this they will not have a second thought about going into the stands. If it means for Artest to be the one so be it. In the long run I think this it the right decision being made. They have to stop this nonsense before it gets any worse than it is. And the people saying if that happened at their work they would have put a whoppin' on the person. Where I worked if I would've done that I would have been out the door with no paychecks forever not just one year. I just can't believe this players getting this kind of money and not having any self control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Ben Wallace started the fight on the court and a Pistons fan threw a cup of ice in Artest's face. So saying that Artest "single-handedly incited a riot" is flat-out wrong. Detroit's idiot fans are as much to blame, if not more, than Artest. 572953[/snapback] Two wrongs don't make it right. If Artest had been smart, he would have used his salary to shove a lawyer so far up that guy's ass he would have had to sell his house. Instead, Artest started the riot with his actions. Over 12 oz of beer dumped on him. He needs to take responsiblity for this. It was his fault it esscalated into fisticuffs placing women and children at risk, pure and simple. It's not as if he was trying to make a citizen's arrest. What was his next action? It looked like it was going to be grabbing the NEXT closest guy and assaulting him until he 'got' to the right guy. The NBA now wants him to walk the plank to ensure future integrity in the eyes of their fans, and I say good for them. People lose their job in the owrkplace all the time when they misrepresent their employer. It's their business at stake if people think it becomes a free for all..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 It looked like it was going to be grabbing the NEXT closest guy and assaulting him until he 'got' to the right guy. 573225[/snapback] "The NEXT closest guy" was the real beer-thrower who punched him in the back of the head twice. At that point, he had assaultled Ron twice. Fans deserve much more blame in this than they are getting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Ron Artest was looking for a reason to take time off. Anything was going to set him off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Two wrongs don't make it right. 573225[/snapback] Yet, Artest obviously didn't "single-handedly" start the riot. The idiot Pistons fan who threw the cup (who, BTW, has multiple felony convictions, such as DUI and assault, and is still on probation) is more to blame, IMO. That said, I agree that Artest is a moron (and not just because of what happened here). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 (edited) Ah so the guy who threw a cup, who didn't rush the court, where he's not supposed to be, is more to blame. While Artest who laid down on the table and rushed into the crowd punching people isn't more at fault. Edited November 24, 2004 by WaterMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 "The NEXT closest guy" was the real beer-thrower who punched him in the back of the head twice. At that point, he had assaultled Ron twice. Fans deserve much more blame in this than they are getting. 573265[/snapback] And you mind read into Artest that he was going to turn his way next how? You don't. Maybe he went after the guy up and to his left next, instead of down and directly behind him. Again, your logic implies that because he was so close at the beginning, that the riot is ok since he got pretty close with his first attempt at wildly lashing out at innocent people. I don't care about the fan that threw the beer, he'll get his. The guy who threw the chair will probably be charged with a felony, which he should. When you make 5 mil a year, you need to have thick skin, especially over beer. Otherwise, Michael Irvin would have returned to Philly with an AK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 And you mind read into Artest that he was going to turn his way next how? You don't. Maybe he went after the guy up and to his left next, instead of down and directly behind him. 573342[/snapback] Huh? He WAS the guy Artest went after next, because the guy punched him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Again, your logic implies that because he was so close at the beginning, that the riot is ok since he got pretty close with his first attempt at wildly lashing out at innocent people. 573342[/snapback] I never implied anything like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Huh? He WAS the guy Artest went after next, because the guy punched him. 573350[/snapback] And if he hadn't swung? That was what got his attention at that point, bnot Artest looking around for another person. He was reacting to that at the point.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 who is mind reading now? "if" he hadn't punched what would have happened? Who knows? Certainly not you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 who is mind reading now? "if" he hadn't punched what would have happened? Who knows? Certainly not you. 573389[/snapback] I'm not mind reading. Why Artest got to the right guy with his 'second attempt' (for lack of a better term) wasn't because he was continuing to look for the beer thrower, but rather reaacting to the beer thrower now punching him in his right ear from behind. In other words: at that point the right guy cam e after him he wasn't going for the right guy. Again, if the guy hadn't thrown the punch at that point how do we know Artest would've whupped on him next? We don't. BTW - you in Indiana? Up late last night and right back at it. Must be nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 (edited) Yes, you just made the point I've been saying. Ron made the mistake of going after the wrong guy. However, once fans start attacking him, he has the right to defend himself. He went in the stands, not to start a riot, but to confront the fan he felt threw it. The other fans started the riot. Neither you or I know what would have happened had the fans not got involved. Maybe Ron walks out of the stands, just like he did after hitting the beer-thrower. Maybe he dances a jig on the scorers table. Maybe he promotes his album some more. Who knows? We never will, because fans stepped in and started attacking him. Edited November 24, 2004 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Yes, you just made the point I've been saying. Ron made the mistake of going after the wrong guy. However, once fans start attacking him, he has the right to defend himself. He went in the stands, not to start a riot, but to confront the fan he felt threw it. The other fans started the riot. 573410[/snapback] Yeah, but throwing gas on a match isn't very smart now is it? And if you do that and burn down the building you're the one responsible. That's what I'm saying: the punishment is appropriate given the circumstances, and they shouldn't let any fans off either. The onese on the court should have lawsuits thrown out as well because they never should have been there, as I'm sure it says on the back of their ticket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 Ben Wallace cotinued to incite the fans by not walking away from the incident too. He stood there, acting tough, after completely overreacting to a borderline hard foul. Then he throws things at Artest. He fanned the flames as well. I don't think it would be fair to blame him for what others did after that. I don't think you can blame Ron for what fans did after he confronted the wrong guy either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 (edited) Ben Wallace cotinued to incite the fans by not walking away from the incident too. He stood there, acting tough, after completely overreacting to a borderline hard foul. Then he throws things at Artest. He fanned the flames as well. I don't think it would be fair to blame him for what others did after that. I don't think you can blame Ron for what fans did after he confronted the wrong guy either. 573424[/snapback] Well, plenty of fracases have haapened that didn't result in a riot in the NBA. So although Wallace was acting like a biatch (I've seen much harder fouls) he wasn't acting in a way to start a riot. And I do blame him(Artest) - going into the stands is a dicey proposition at best. Sort of akin to sticking your hand in a lions cage and then wondering if he's hungry. You get it bit off it's your fault. You go into stands and start swinging wildly, and you CAN blame him. Many people will defend themselves if they feel threatened physically. In some sense you can't blame some of the fan reactions, especially the ones that were simply watching but found themselvers confronted by men who probably have at least 6 inches on them. 'Honest mistake' or not. You don't like the suspension, I think it's fine. I hope they make hardcore examples out of the fans as well, so that no one takes a profit from this. Both fans and players need to be made examples of so neither group ever sees a financial opportunity to recreate something like this in the future. Edited November 24, 2004 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.