As much as I hate players showing up the ref, this is not going to end well. In a league known for dubious officiating, the last thing the NBA needs is a policy where the players can't question the refs at all. What constitutes "excessive inquiries"? Two questions could be too much for Crawford.

This could also be called the anti-Tim Duncan "I'm going to bug my eyes out and look like you just killed my mother every time you call a foul on me" rule.

And I say that as a big Duncan fan :)

I like that they are trying to clean the game up, but I think excessive flopping and the dreaded "superstar calls" are far more damaging to the game than the whining.

The NBA is in desperate need of "a foul is a foul is a foul is a FOUL" rule.

Is Miami going to go to the line 40+ times a game now that they have 3 superstars? God, I hope not.

As usual, they're addressing the symptoms but not the cause. Players are going to bitch if they think they've been wronged whether or not they actually were, as will the coaches. Rather than trying to hide behind the well-known problems the sport has by punishing anybody who questions it with any emotion, consider exactly what institutional inadequacies you have and solve them. Even something like an extra ref for more coverage on plays would help, but that would actually be doing something.

Now, the worst of the gesticulating or begging/mouthing off at the refs is certainly worthy of a T but that's the way it is already without having to add rules that basically prohibit showing emotion in a highly charged situation.

Kimmel is a homer.

I think I'm going to be Rasheed Wallace for Halloween. I'll enter a costume contest and when the winner is announced, and it's not me, run and scream all over the place like someone just stole my 50" plasma TV. I could have fun with this idea.

These rules, if we are to interpret them based on the plain meaning of their language, give referees the same type of authority over NBA players that Russian Commissars had over their soldiers in WWII: unfettered discretion to use overly severe punishment to suppress any expression of dissent.

(Note to everyone on the Internets: see how I did that without involving Hitler or slaves? You're welcome.)

As I look at these rules, I can tell just at first glance that if any government in this country (state/municipal) tried to codify them into law, they would be instantly stricken on constitutional grounds.

It makes me wonder: is the NBA NOT subject to the supreme law of the land which grants citizens the freedom to express their beliefs in peaceful protest?

These rules are barbaric, unconscionable, one-sided, and unamerican.

They shift the blame for referee-player arguments unjustly and unconditionally on the player, and in doing so create an even more unbalanced power dynamic between them. Like flight attendants who now all of a sudden have the power to have people kicked off of planes and arrested by air marshals, this rule gives referees power which will unavoidably corrupt. How long until the record for most T's in a game/month/season is set?

The rules also give referees even more ability to affect the outcomes of games. Technical fouls result in points and ejections. Points and ejections determine games. Therefore technical fouls also determine games. I thought the goal was to make the referee invisible and keep the focus on the athletes? Doesn't this do exactly the opposite of that?

Furthermore, the rules simply do not jibe with basic human instinct. Are these players supposed to be emotionless robots when Manu Ginobili flops at a critical moment in a close game? If the answer is "yes", then the only way to achieve such a result would be to lobotomize each player and remove from their brains any desire to win. When things don't go our way, we as humans react in conscious and sub-conscious ways. I'd bet that the Tim Duncan Face is more a sub-conscious reaction than a planned, choreographed "showing-up" of the referee. Should he be punished for having normal human instincts?

Therefore these rules are a joke. They don't pass constitutional muster, they give referees too much power and discretion, they shift the blame unconditionally onto players, and they fly in the face of human nature.

In the end, I hope that they just get ignored, but with the way information spreads these days, that is unlikely. Here's hoping I'm wrong.

Shame on you, David Stern.

In other news, Greg Oden apparently has patellar tendinitis and won't be ready for the start of the season:

http://www.dwightjaynes.com/greg-oden-now-has-patellar-tendinitis

There's a reason that Greg Oden looks so old: He's actually the result of a threesome between Bill Walton, Sam Bowie, and a woman with advanced osteoporosis.

I mean, I'm sure dude is a swell guy, but he is not going to play regularly in the NBA, ever. His body no work.

I hate Jimmy Kimmel.

AK Dave - you are SUCH a lawyer, and based on that argument you MUST be from alaska because you sound like Palin talking about free speech.

As a matter of employment, the NBA absolutely can dictate what it's players say and do, ESPECIALLY during an actual NBA event. At home, in a private conversation, definitely not. In a non-NBA but public event, they do but likely because it's part of a signed contract - that would be negotiable based on the judge, lawyers, etc. But in a game? Pssh. It's constitutional. (Sorry about the Palin jokes - it was just too easy)

I don't really have an opinion on the rule itself. I like that the league wants to stop that bullshit, but have grave concerns about the consistent enforcement.

As a Magic fan, I'm curious to see if Dwight Howard can break Rasheed's technical foul record this upcoming season with these new rules in effect. Maybe DH12 will rack up so many T's that Rasheed has to come back just to protect his good name.

BadDave:

Yeah the constitutional thing was a little tongue-in-cheek.

But really, dude. These rules look like they were written by Bennett Salvatore, not anyone with a real brain.

Well then, I say good day, sir. GOOD DAY!

Agreed.