Tag:Player's Union
Posted on: October 14, 2010 9:50 pm
 

The Union decides tantrums is the hill to die on

Player's Union intends to file suit against league for rule regarding player's acting like four-year-olds.
Posted by Matt Moore




Tantrums. That's apparently what the NBA's Player's Union feels is the hill to push litigation over . Not a better pension plan, or fewer regular season games, or even revenue sharing, apparently. They're going to pursue litigation over their right to stomp and yell and scream and curse the officials who are only doing their jobs. Because, really, when you think about it, that's what the Union needs most of all.

Perhaps you were curious about what the union is actually saying. Here's their press release, courtesy of KB:

The new unilateral rule changes are an unnecessary and unwarranted overreaction on the league’s behalf. We have not seen any increase in the level of “complaining” to the officials and we believe that players as a whole have demonstrated appropriate behavior toward the officials. Worse yet, to the extent the harsher treatment from the referees leads to a stifling of the players’ passion and exuberance for their work, we fear these changes may actually harm our product. The changes were made without proper consultation with the Players Association, and we intend to file an appropriate legal challenge.

Let's go through this line by line, in the most often-replicated-never-really-dupli
cated
way possible, shall we?

"The new unilateral rule changes are an unnecessary and unwarranted overreaction on the league’s behalf."

Unnecessary. An ironic word to use since, considering no referee has ever reversed a call on the basis of a player's complaint, the complaint in and of itself is unnecessary. So the rule to prevent unnecessary actions is unnecessary, which would of course make the complaints necessary, but they of course are not necessary. Now, that's some faulty logic, but the point's still the same. The rule is necessary. It's how it's execute that you can argue may not be.

"We have not seen any increase in the level of 'complaining' to the officials and we believe that players as a whole have demonstrated appropriate behavior toward the officials. "

I'll believe there's been no increase, but that doesn't mean the level is appropriate. Because it's not. Watch Tim Duncan. Or Kobe Bryant. Or even Kendrick Perkins. Or, you know, Kevin Garnett (or look at the gigantic picture above). Even Celtics fans complained about how much the team complained last year. But maybe that's just an accent thing.

"Worse yet, to the extent the harsher treatment from the referees leads to a stifling of the players’ passion and exuberance for their work, we fear these changes may actually harm our product."

This as opposed to players taking games off in the middle of the season because they're "bored" or the fact that officials being influenced towards not calling fouls leads to a physical game like existed in the late 90's, AKA the most boring brand of basketball on the planet. But whatevs. The players are clearly worried about the product. That's why they're so easy to coach.

"The changes were made without proper consultation with the Players Association, and we intend to file an appropriate legal challenge."

Right, because the change wasn't discussed for weeks and the players weren't given a heads up on it. That's how that went down. It was a sneak attack! Like Pearl Harbor, only with Kevin Garnett being ejected for yelling and screaming!

I tend to side with the Union on most issues, including those regarding the upcoming CBA and the essential need for a better revenue sharing model. But to pick this as the issue they want to sue over in a season with as many issues to discuss as this one is absurd. Just tell your guys to chill out and go play.
 
 
 
 
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com