Ron Artest Out For The Season

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:06 pm

Wow. I totally agree with this decision. Ben Wallace got 6 games, which, in comparison, is small, but then again, Wallace didn't punch a fan. Tempers flare on the court, and he should be better than that, but Artest took it to the next level.

Gromit · Post by **Gromit** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:40 pm

Good freakin' riddance.

What a bunch of thugs.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Sun Nov 21, 2004 11:58 pm

The season?

Meaning he will be free to play in the NBA next year and beyond?

Screw the NBA - bunch of thugs.

TheMissingLink · Post by **TheMissingLink** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:17 am

A part of me thinks that Artest did this on purpose...he was talking about how he wanted to promote his r&b albums and whatnot...

There weren't enough suspensions. I saw some other players do things (some point guard for the Pacers, forget his name)...eh, whatever.

Thugs are taking over sports...that's why hockey was so enjoyable. You don't have guys out there struttin' their egos...

Suitably Ironic Moniker · Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:19 am

Thugs are taking over sports...that's why hockey was so enjoyable. You don't have guys out there struttin' their egos...

Yes, I wish they would bring back that beacon of civility that is hockey. Last I checked, Artest didn't put anyone in the hospital with a concussion via a cheap shot (not that I think that he wouldn't if given a stick on the court).

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:23 am

Isn't ego-stroking (along with fan appeasement) 99% of the "fights" in the NHL?

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:27 am

TheMissingLink wrote:A part of me thinks that Artest did this on purpose...he was talking about how he wanted to promote his r&b albums and whatnot...

I don't think so--remember he now loses his pay for the season. Them's a lot of dollars.

gellar · Post by **gellar** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:39 am

ImLawBoy wrote:Isn't ego-stroking (along with fan appeasement) 99% of the "fights" in the NHL?

Shush you. Don't you go bringing logic into this.

gellar

msteelers · Post by **msteelers** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:46 am

If the commish had any balls he would have kicked Artest and Jackson out of the league.

However, since I knew that wasn't going to happen, this is a good step.

This weekend has pushed me really close to giving up on sports.

Eightball · Post by **Eightball** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:08 am

msteelers wrote:If the commish had any balls he would have kicked Artest and Jackson out of the league.

Remember, this is the same guy that allowed Sprewell to choke his coach in front of many people.

In most lines of work, that would be called "Attempted Murder". With a far nastier sentence than a one year layoff (bringing back to our Office Space thread, attempted murder would send you to federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison...).

Instead Spree got to sit in his mansion and watch TV for a year. Poor baby!

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:24 am

Heh, the Pistons still won in OT (though against the Bobcats) with a patchwork lineup of eight players.

Kasey Chang · Post by **Kasey Chang** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:39 am

Then the cops consider filing charges of assault against him... THAT would complete the punishment, IMHO.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:32 am

I live in Indy, so I've been exposed to just about every angle of the throwdown possible, including a rather long discussion by a talk radio show this morning (a 'regular' morning show, not a sports talking head). It's amazing the number of people who try to justify what Artest and the posse did. 'There were racial slurs thrown out,' 'he was hit full-on by a cup of beer!,' etc etc. What people fail to comprehend is that there is a reason these people are paid seven figures to play a game. They go into it knowing that they'll play 41 games in hostile territory every season. I'm sure they hear names called every game. But none of that justifies entering the stands, much less wailing on everyone in sight, most of whom are nowhere near your size and level of phyiscal conditioning.

When Artest entered the stands, he escalated the situation to a whole new level; everyone on the floor that night should be thanking their deity of choice that they left the Palace without serious injury. Being outnumbered 18,000:12 is not a good situation.

Granted, there is plenty of blame to go around. Palace security was a total joke. In addition to being understaffed, they were undertrained (hiding behind fans is not in the job description). Wallace was the first to succumb to a weak mind by beginning the fracas. The Pacers who provided suppressing fire for Artest, IMO, should have been kicked for the same length of time as Ronnie--it doesn't matter who entered the stands first; that's a line that you Do Not Cross™, and I think the NBA is remiss not to remind them of that.

The sad part is that after the players' union appeals the suspensions, they're likely to drop quite a bit. Oh well; at least the 12/25 Pistons-Pacers game here at Conseco should sell out.

So much for the Pacers' championship hopes! Let's try to win with 7 players!

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:27 am

Isn't ego-stroking (along with fan appeasement) 99% of the "fights" in the NHL?

Actually I'd think that would 10% or less. Most of the fighting is from the testostorone driving a game where contact is adreneline are a constant. It's not so much the ego, but what happens to keep the players from actually snapping. If you didn't give them a chance to blow off the steam and get a little resolution over the bullshit checks the hostility would get worse and worse. Now hockey of the 70's where it became know for it's fighting was a more along what you are thinking. A certain Probert comes to mind, and being a youngin' when Probie was playing that sort of fan appeasement worked for me. A lot of people watched just to see how long it took him to get kicked out of the game.

EvilHomer3k · Post by **EvilHomer3k** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:40 am

I agree with Zaxxon. You get payed to play a game. You get payed to play that game under the spotlight, scrutiny, and the beratement of fans and the media. If you can't handle that, you don't belong in the game. IMO, Jackson's suspension should be at least as bad ast Artest's if not worse. To just run into the stands and start punching people with no physical action against you is inexcusable. I understand protecting your 'family' but if you go into the stands, it is only to deescalate things by separating your teammate from the melee. It is not to particpate.

jonsauce · Post by **jonsauce** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:47 am

he now loses his pay for the season. Them's a lot of dollars.

Man, if this was Rasheed Wallace his family would die of starvation!

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:48 am

The suspensions will be less once the unions appeals. They should be in scale with historical penalties. They should still make the playoffs, and with Artest back contend for the title, of course expect the refs to make that VERY difficult.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:55 am

I've only seen the .rm video of this scene that was linked one of the many threads on this topic, but...

I told my Dad on Saturday afternoon that I expected Artest to get 20-games, and Wallace 10. He thought I was silly to have such high expectations. And while Wallace brought the whole situation on with a very obvious over-reaction, if Artest doesn't go into the crowd, I believe Wallace gets ejected from the game and no further suspension for pushing another player after being intentionally fouled during a lay-up attempt. 6-game based on an opposing player going non-linear (which was my Dad's reasoning for being so surprised when I predicted a 10-game Wallace suspension) *is* a bit much, but the whole penalty/suspension thing is more about the league wanting to puff itself up and appear to be cracking down on these things, isn't it? Hafta appear to be going tough on the players...

As Eightball is pointing out, attempted murder (or at least assault) was a "disciplinary situation." The league *isn't* interested in addressing the real issue (inadequate security, overblown multimillionaire egos coupled with an inability to deal with that amount of money, and spectator/player access to the field of play/fans' seating areas), but instead on taking some money away from a few players who reacted poorly and hoping that everyone else gets the message. If they don't attack the root causes of this incident, another fracas of this severity *WILL* happen again in the future. Maybe later this season, maybe two years from now, maybe twenty years in the future. But if the NBA thinks that *only* handing out suspensions is going to fix the underlying issues, then they're more poorly equipped to handle a multi-billion dollar league than I would have thought.

~Neal

Guy Incognito · Post by **Guy Incognito** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:27 am

As others have said, lots of blame to go around. Stern laid down the law in regards to the players but I'm interested if another shoe is going to fall here. What about the fans involved? The video shows tons of fans doing things there is no excuse for. Are they going to lose their season tickets? Are they going to be banned from the building? The players involved were in the wrong but so were a lot of fans. Just as a precedent needs to be set to make sure the players don't cross the line, a precedent needs to be set with what is allowable by fans.

Dogstar · Post by **Dogstar** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:48 am

A season-long suspension for Artest just fits, given his past history. Jackson and O'Neal don't have histories of blowing up, and Artest does. Also, if O'Neal's one punch landed fully (he slipped), he'd be looking at a lot longer chunk of time. This is also Stern's way of warning teams to keep headcases out of the NBA if possible. Just don't sign them, or risk losing them for a chunk of the season if they get out of hand. Does the league still need to so something about security and the fans? Sure. However, this is the message that needs to be sent to the players and the teams.

A decent column about this -- http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/s ... id=1928761

Debris · Post by **Debris** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:16 pm

So, when will the civil lawsuits be filed by the fans who were beat up on?

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:12 pm

Originally posted by Lord Mortis:
Actually I'd think that would 10% or less. Most of the fighting is from the testostorone driving a game where contact is adreneline are a constant. It's not so much the ego, but what happens to keep the players from actually snapping. If you didn't give them a chance to blow off the steam and get a little resolution over the bullshit checks the hostility would get worse and worse. Now hockey of the 70's where it became know for it's fighting was a more along what you are thinking. A certain Probert comes to mind, and being a youngin' when Probie was playing that sort of fan appeasement worked for me. A lot of people watched just to see how long it took him to get kicked out of the game.

Not to take this too far off topic, but I don't buy the blowing off steam argument. There's some great college hockey out there, but because the penalties for fighting are real, the only time you actually see a fight is when the players really, really can't take it anymore. In the NHL, fights are just such a part of the game that people really go there wondering who will fight that night (and they usually know who will fight that night). The fights end up being a few lame punches while the other guy tries to pull the first guy's sweater over his head.

OK - there are some really good fights, too, and I'm not arguing to take the fighting out of the NHL (although I wouldn't mind it). Also, you have to remember that I live in Chicago, where we can't watch home Blackhawk games on TV, and we can't go to Blackhawk games live without a second mortgage, and no one really wants to see a team that bad, anyway. (Of course, I could always get tickets to see the pro hockey team in town - the Wolves - since my sister-in-law's brother works for them, and they don't suck mightily like the Blackhawks.)

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:17 pm

I really don't see that many fights in NHL anymore. I haven't for a while. When it happens it's ususally something that has been percaltin'.

msteelers · Post by **msteelers** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:29 pm

ImLawBoy wrote:
Originally posted by Lord Mortis:
Actually I'd think that would 10% or less. Most of the fighting is from the testostorone driving a game where contact is adreneline are a constant. It's not so much the ego, but what happens to keep the players from actually snapping. If you didn't give them a chance to blow off the steam and get a little resolution over the bullshit checks the hostility would get worse and worse. Now hockey of the 70's where it became know for it's fighting was a more along what you are thinking. A certain Probert comes to mind, and being a youngin' when Probie was playing that sort of fan appeasement worked for me. A lot of people watched just to see how long it took him to get kicked out of the game.
Not to take this too far off topic, but I don't buy the blowing off steam argument. There's some great college hockey out there, but because the penalties for fighting are real, the only time you actually see a fight is when the players really, really can't take it anymore. In the NHL, fights are just such a part of the game that people really go there wondering who will fight that night (and they usually know who will fight that night). The fights end up being a few lame punches while the other guy tries to pull the first guy's sweater over his head.

OK - there are some really good fights, too, and I'm not arguing to take the fighting out of the NHL (although I wouldn't mind it). Also, you have to remember that I live in Chicago, where we can't watch home Blackhawk games on TV, and we can't go to Blackhawk games live without a second mortgage, and no one really wants to see a team that bad, anyway. (Of course, I could always get tickets to see the pro hockey team in town - the Wolves - since my sister-in-law's brother works for them, and they don't suck mightily like the Blackhawks.)

Believe it or not, but fights in hockey actually serve a purpose. There's a reason why most teams try to sign at least one nasty son of a bitch. He is there to protect their superstar forwards and keep the rest of the game wide open. You lay the smack down on the forward, he'll come gunning for you. Sooner or later, you remember that if you hit the forward you'll get it right back.

This especially comes into play in those long playoff series. Those bench clearing brawls at the end of the game set the tone for the beginning of the next game.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:50 pm

msteelers wrote:This especially comes into play in those long playoff series. Those bench clearing brawls at the end of the game set the tone for the beginning of the next game.

Without getting too much into trying to modify folks' views on NHL fights (I've got my own opinions, and let me just say that they're not {yet?} reflected in this thread), you almost *never* see fights in the playoffs. The pugilists aren't even on playoff rosters unless teams are seriously depleted due to injuries. The rate of playoff fighting majors is something like 1/5th of the rate during the regular season...

~Neal

Post by **ImLawBoy** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:37 am

I don't doubt that hockey fights serve a purpose - I just don't necessarily like that purpose. It's probably because I first got into hockey by watching college hockey, but I like the lack of fighting better.

LM, you may be right about fewer fights in the NHL these days. I haven't watched NHL hockey much in recent years (even when they have a season.) When the owner of your local team does everything in his power to prevent people from being fans, it kind of prevents you from watching a lot of games.

msteelers · Post by **msteelers** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:45 am

The Meal wrote:
msteelers wrote:This especially comes into play in those long playoff series. Those bench clearing brawls at the end of the game set the tone for the beginning of the next game.
Without getting too much into trying to modify folks' views on NHL fights (I've got my own opinions, and let me just say that they're not {yet?} reflected in this thread), you almost *never* see fights in the playoffs. The pugilists aren't even on playoff rosters unless teams are seriously depleted due to injuries. The rate of playoff fighting majors is something like 1/5th of the rate during the regular season...

~Neal

I live in a hockey-less town. So besides the weekly game on ESPN, I only get to watch playoff hockey. But fights seem to happen at least once a series in the playoffs, more if the teams are physical.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:33 am

LM, you may be right about fewer fights in the NHL these days. I haven't watched NHL hockey much in recent years (even when they have a season.) When the owner of your local team does everything in his power to prevent people from being fans, it kind of prevents you from watching a lot of games.

Yeah, blackouts suck. Had we not had so many at the old Silverdome, I might have grown up enjoying watching football. Instead I am a red blooded American who is finally watching his first season of football, well, because I have no hockey.

I'm curious as to what your thoughts are Neal. I am limited mainly to Wings games on as many nights a week as they are not, so I can't speak the general nature of hockey. When growing up, the Wings had the brut squad. Probert led the way and fights were almost literally a nightly part of the game and at the time (for me, anyway) that was part of the entertainment. As I got older and enjoyed the hockey game part of the game, I was fortunate as the Wings (and the league to my limited viewership) mellowed out. The Wings now only seem to have one goon and that Hatcher. He seems mostly reeled in by the team and they rarely respond to cheap hits, except againt Yzerman. The last time I remember any regularly scheduled fights at all on the ice was against the Avalanche and that all came back to hospitalizing Draper. That was the step too far. That was the point where player justice took over.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:57 am

Yeah, the Probie/Kocur days were the days of a different Wings team. Hatcher is a goon of a different color, more of a cheap-shot elbow/dirty-play artist than a drop-the-gloves-and-go-toe-to-toe kind of guy (although his playing style does give him ample opportunity to thrown down, usually because the other player is so damn pissed off). The most recent pugilist I can think of on a high-talent Wings team is Stu Grimson, and even that's going back, what? eight or so years (back when the Wings were the talented but underachieving team of the mid-nineties).

Fights *do* let players blow off steam (and keep the other intent-to-injure penalties down). Some fighters *do* premeditatedly drop the gloves. Some coaches *will* toss certain players on the ice expecting a rumble (to spur on the troops, the fans, or both). Some GMs *do* put no-talent fighters on the ice as a protective measure for a team's stars, falling back on the M.A.D. threat of frontier justice. NCAA icers *are* capable of playing the game without resorting to blooding up their knuckles. I think it's really too easy to try and make fighting in the NHL a black-and-white issue, but deep down I think it's pretty grey with a whole lot of room for analysis of individual situations as opposed to forming easy stereotypes.

~Neal

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:27 am

An interesting coincidence in the football schedule:

WEEK 12
Thursday, Nov. 25
Indianapolis at Detroit, 12:37 p.m.

Koz · Post by **Koz** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:33 am

The role of fights seems pretty plain to me: the fans love it.

As an example I recently went to an AHL game where there was a good 4-5,000 people attending. A good crowd overall, but during the one or two fights in the game, the noise level in the arena practically doubled. The fans LOVE it when the local pugilist (Louis Robitaille) starts throwing punches at the opposing team's goon. It's more about entertainment than actual grudges and emotion, IMO.

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:40 pm

Fights happen all the time on the court, so I feel what Wallace did wasn't as bad. I know people who are saying he should get the same amount of time, but no. He did what happens a lot in any sport; he started pushing. Artest went into the stands.

There's talk that many of the people who were involved will lose their season tickets. Good. Send a message.

Plus, lets say that they AREN'T suspended for that length of time. You think there aren't going to be any civil lawsuits? What the NBA did was say, "Look, we're taking steps to get rid of this." This will definitely help their case.

Exrod · Post by **Exrod** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:46 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:An interesting coincidence in the football schedule:

WEEK 12
Thursday, Nov. 25
Indianapolis at Detroit, 12:37 p.m.

And it is going to be a beating! Here was a good line in the local Detroit paper this morning.

Peyton Manning has 35 TD's in 10 games this season, Joey Harrington has 43 TD's in his career of 40 games (ouch!) In Detroit the backup quarterback is our current hero and we are hoping he gets to play.

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:11 pm

anyone got a link to the video or news story with video?

being completely uninterested by basketball I never bothered seeing the news about it but violence is violence, someone link me please

Kael · Post by **Kael** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 3:41 pm

Somewhere there is a meeting going on at the sports video game franchises where they are discussing adding the ability to rush the stands to next years video games.

DiscoJason · Post by **DiscoJason** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:04 pm

Personally, I am glad Artest did what he did. There is no reaosn these guys have to take shit from another human being like that. It doesn't matter how much money they make. Fans have no right to throw things at players. Sure, he shouldn't run into the stands and beat the shit out of someone for mere words, but when you are being assaulted with objects, fuck yeah he has the right to march up there and hand out an ass-whoopin'. Maybe that fan (and other fans) will think twice before doing it again. I am not even a violent person by nature or anything. I am just sick of fans thinking they can do whatever they want because they paid for a ticket. Sure Artest will lose out on the money this season, but I think he can hold his head up high knowing he stood up for himself and wasn't going to take shit from some asshole in the stands who thinks he has the right to do whatever he wants.

Kael · Post by **Kael** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:16 pm

DiscoJason wrote:Personally, I am glad Artest did what he did. There is no reaosn these guys have to take shit from another human being like that. It doesn't matter how much money they make. Fans have no right to throw things at players. Sure, he shouldn't run into the stands and beat the shit out of someone for mere words, but when you are being assaulted with objects, fuck yeah he has the right to march up there and hand out an ass-whoopin'. Maybe that fan (and other fans) will think twice before doing it again. I am not even a violent person by nature or anything. I am just sick of fans thinking they can do whatever they want because they paid for a ticket. Sure Artest will lose out on the money this season, but I think he can hold his head up high knowing he stood up for himself and wasn't going to take shit from some asshole in the stands who thinks he has the right to do whatever he wants.

I agree! If anyone throws anything at me I should have carte blanche to go attack them, and anyone standing near them. Why should he just have the fan ejected from the game or arrested when physical assault is an option? I was so glad to hear the hunter who killed 5 people over a tree stand dispute can walk with his head held high today. Sometimes a mans just gotta stand up for himself.

Rich in KCK · Post by **Rich in KCK** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:16 pm

There is a big difference between a fight that takes place in the NHL and one that takes place in Basketball, Baseball, or Football. There is an accepted protocal to almost all fights in Hockey that the players almost always follow. One on One and when one player goes down the fight is over and you skate away. The third man in does happen along with the 3 simultanious fights but it almost never aproaches the mayhem seen in a bench clearing brawl in Baseball and I've never seen anything like last weeks Basketball game. IMO the Playoff Hockey fight is a rarity as well, the games are too important to risk being a man down that long or to give up a spot on the roster for the enforcer in the first place. Actually come to think of it, if Basketball had a penalty box I think it would improve the game, I think the style of play has gone way downhill since the late 80's.

As far as the overall class of the players in the league I'd rank NHL 2nd right below NASCAR and the NBA dead last even if you had asked me 2 weeks ago.

Rich in KCK · Post by **Rich in KCK** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:20 pm

Kael wrote:
DiscoJason wrote:Personally, I am glad Artest did what he did. There is no reaosn these guys have to take shit from another human being like that. It doesn't matter how much money they make. Fans have no right to throw things at players. Sure, he shouldn't run into the stands and beat the shit out of someone for mere words, but when you are being assaulted with objects, fuck yeah he has the right to march up there and hand out an ass-whoopin'. Maybe that fan (and other fans) will think twice before doing it again. I am not even a violent person by nature or anything. I am just sick of fans thinking they can do whatever they want because they paid for a ticket. Sure Artest will lose out on the money this season, but I think he can hold his head up high knowing he stood up for himself and wasn't going to take shit from some asshole in the stands who thinks he has the right to do whatever he wants.
I agree! If anyone throws anything at me I should have carte blanche to go attack them, and anyone standing near them. Why should he just have the fan ejected from the game or arrested when physical assault is an option? I was so glad to hear the hunter who killed 5 people over a tree stand dispute can walk with his head held high today. Sometimes a mans just gotta stand up for himself.

These quotes might carry a little more weight if he had actually gone after the right guy and didn't attack someone who had nothing to do with hitting him with a paper cup

Christ I just read the last part of your quote about the hunter. You realize he was poaching and all the others did was ask him to leave when he decided to open fire on them. Remind me to never give any thought to your future posts on what is right and wrong.

Maybe I spoke too soon, Kaels post does have a level of sarcasm to it but like we always say the medium makes it hard to tell it sometimes.

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:26 pm

Personally, I am glad Artest did what he did. There is no reaosn these guys have to take shit from another human being like that. It doesn't matter how much money they make. Fans have no right to throw things at players. Sure, he shouldn't run into the stands and beat the shit out of someone for mere words, but when you are being assaulted with objects, fuck yeah he has the right to march up there and hand out an ass-whoopin'. Maybe that fan (and other fans) will think twice before doing it again. I am not even a violent person by nature or anything. I am just sick of fans thinking they can do whatever they want because they paid for a ticket. Sure Artest will lose out on the money this season, but I think he can hold his head up high knowing he stood up for himself and wasn't going to take shit from some asshole in the stands who thinks he has the right to do whatever he wants.

Well, do you think you could throw in a requirement that the targeted athelete have to attack the person who actually threw the beer? And not, you know, some random guy several rows/seats away?

Rich, I believe Kael was being sarcastic. I don't want to speak for Kael, and apologies if I am misrepresenting his words, but that's the vibe I'm getting.