I need to re-phrase my former question. The Pacers lost an NBA Title opportunity due to that brawl. Unruly fans that were upset that their team was not only losing, but getting their butts kicked badly..started behaving badly. I agree that Artest should have been suspended but the punishment didn't fit the crime. It cost the Pacers a Title opportunity. Artest was the best defender in the league that year, the Pacers were Number one in the east up until that game, by several games I might add. They hadn't even lost double digit games yet. So, we know the Pacers should have been in the title game.. the Lakers weren't even a blip that year. So, how many fewer games should Artest have been suspended? Should he at least have been allowed to play in the playoffs? Since the suspension happened in the regular season that would have seemed fair to me. 10 games? 15, 20? What do you think.
2007-03-04 03:54:53 · 8 answers · asked by 1yugpj 2 in Sports ➔ Basketball
20
2007-03-04 04:07:17 · answer #1 · answered by NBA Kid 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actaully, Ben Wallace replaced into the only Piston that replaced into violent in my eyes. Im specific there have been different issues going on off-digicam, yet maximum severely he wasnt a PIstons/Pacers combat. It replaced right into a Pacers v. Pistons' fan brawl. Stepehn Jackson, ROn Artest, Jamaal Tinsley, Jermaine O'neal.
2016-10-17 06:06:34 · answer #2 · answered by corbo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your assertion that it "cost them the NBA title" is pure speculation. The Pacers have not had a legitimate championship team for more than 10 years. I am a Pacers fan too, but think that Artest was a cancer in the belly of the team and the Pacers made the right choice to suspend him, and then later to get rid of him. I never saw him as anything but a thug.
2007-03-04 04:06:22 · answer #3 · answered by Heatmizer 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have to understand the answer to this question, outside of Indiana, will be correlated to racial lines. For the most part, middle class, dominate America will rule it's correct for him to be out the whole season and playoffs because no one should witness fighting on TV, especially with fans.
On the other hand, most of America in other class ranges of minority backgrounds would argue that yes, he was wrong, he should be suspended, and reprimanded, but hold on a second? Someone threw a beer at him and rushed the court? Why aren't their faces all over the news and why aren't they immediately in jail? All we see is Artest. Then, we find out that NBA players are harassed often, spit on, and racial slurs are thrown at them? Then we see that in NHL hockey, a 95% white sport, fighting is part of the game and often gets very ugly and has in a few instances involved a player confronting fans behind his own bench. Oh and not to mention the guy that almost killed a player by striking him from behind, (I know I know, he left the game, but still).
The point is, the punishment is right, but, if you're going to single out one man and blame not only the incident but all the problems of the world and the NBA on him, you are way out of line, especially if you suspend him an entire season and do not let him return for the playoffs. It just goes to show you, the country and the NBA are ruled by white males, who will do anything to protect THEIR image and make money in the NBA. The last thing the ruling class of America wants to see is a Black man attacking a fan on TV, he's liable to have his career ended.
2007-03-04 04:40:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
the suspension was just. regardless of whether the fans were unruly or whatever,he should have remembered that they were in hostile territory,much less the palace, where you expect to be heckled. yeah the fan went too far,but artest should have left the matter to security,and acted as a professional. he was being paid as a professional and since he acted unprofessionally,he was justly suspended without pay for the season.
2007-03-04 04:01:21 · answer #5 · answered by thesavageworm 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
first and foremost the Pacers had a 0% chance of winning it all.
Artest was reckless and could control his anger. it was not close to the playoffs.
I think it was fair.
2007-03-04 05:24:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
for the rest of the season...it really isnt that bad, but it was close to the playoffs, so it was a good punishment from david stern
2007-03-04 04:04:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think the whole season was good, if he held on 2 his temper he wouldve had a title shot, n that fan would have been convicted nyway
2007-03-04 04:01:59 · answer #8 · answered by punjabi4life 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋