Re: Doc meltdown
posted at 5/17/2014 7:08 AM EDT
In response to ABQDan's comment:
Jesus, the stupidity here.
1. You are not "taking away a person's assets" if you force Sterling to sell. It's a franchise - which means the league invests a lot of money in the franchisees. That's called a partnership. Of course, that might sail right over the head of some posters.
2. Whether or not you like Doc, the BS is a huge distraction. "Bump of goodwill?" Idiotic. Playoff series are so hard to win - any distraction is bad.
3. Susan is right - even jerks have basic civil rights. However, when you are a FRANCHISEE (see: #1 above) you cede a lot of those, in a franchisee sense.
4. The blown calls were awful. I'm a former hoops ref, and I know the difference between a bad call and a tilted game. Apparently, y'all don't. "What turned out to be the right call" .... please.
Agreed, the stupidity you exhibited is worthy of religious intervention
1) Yes, the NBA is attempting to force the sale of Sterlings asset so he will no longer own it. It's an attempt to take his asset from him against his will
Also theres quite a difference between a franchise and a partnership... so before you suggest something is sailing over anyones head, educate yourself on the structure of each entity so you dont make a fool of yourself again
2) The distraction wasnt much of a problem when the Clippers knocked off the Warriors, was it. Only after the Clippers lost the series vs OKC. The Sterling incident was league wide and may have affected the Clippers more, but the again, maybe it was more how Doc handled it. Lamenting how he couldnt remain in Sterlings employ (while still cashing his paychecks), jumping on the antiSterling bandwagon at every opportunity instead of demonstrating tunnel vision to the media & his team about OKC. Doc viewed himself a savior & the biggest victim of all.. describing his visit to the Clipper organization to calm everyone.. Worries me was DOcs mantra... poor Doc
3) Dummy, you dont cede your civil rights because youre a franchisee.. Where are you coming up with this nonsense??? In addition, any contractual relationship.. anywhere in the USA, is inferior and subject to compliance of state and federal law. If you had any experience in the matter, youd know most all contracts have this contingency so as to allow for the remainder of the contract in compliance to remain in effect.
4) No wonder youre a former hoops ref.. b/c you dont know the rules. The out of bounds call was correct both by rule and replay. A defenders hand hitting the offensive players hand, knocking the ball out of bounds, remains with the offensive teams possession..even though they were the last to touch the ball.
Additionally, the game replay the refs were viewing were not conclusive to rule otherwise. When viewed in slow mo from various angles, it was impossible to conclude with certainty the OKC players hand was last to touch. The perfect angle didnt exist..