Poll

Would you approve the rule change where the attacker is suspended until the injured player returns?

Yes
8 (36.4%)
No
12 (54.5%)
It is not that simple to answer with Yes or No, I'll comment.
2 (9.1%)

Total Members Voted: 22

Author Topic: Would you approve this rule?  (Read 582 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Would you approve this rule?
« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2017, 06:06:04 PM »

Offline Sketch5

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2451
  • Tommy Points: 206
Like most said, it would hurt the team , but it's also hurting the team long term keeping him on the team. Players may not like playing with him after this. So I say a team can cut him with out any penalties  like having to pay the remainder or even part of his contract. Pretty much void his contract. The players would have to vote this in of course, but it's fair.

Re: Would you approve this rule?
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2017, 06:19:11 PM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3464
  • Tommy Points: 230
Like most said, it would hurt the team , but it's also hurting the team long term keeping him on the team. Players may not like playing with him after this. So I say a team can cut him with out any penalties  like having to pay the remainder or even part of his contract. Pretty much void his contract. The players would have to vote this in of course, but it's fair.

If a team wanted to void a deal, there's likely still a "morality clause" in the standard contract...not that I've actually read an NBA contract...still waiting on that call from Danny... Anyway, putting a teammate in the hospital by a deliberate act of violence might count.

This reminds me, anyone remember the penalty for choking coach PJ Carlisimo a bunch of years back?  Was that Spree?

 But it would be ugly, and another team would likely just sign the jerk as a FA.