Stern makes Bud Selig seem like Confucius, Saul and the Dalai Lama rolled into one.

I don't get it. Are you saying the rule doesn't apply to the Suns' players because:
(1) it was the more competent players;
(2) its an important game; or
(3) they only broke the rule a little? Like Horry only fouled Nash a little before he did his Euro-weenie dive.

NBA Regulations say: "The fact that you may feel provoked by another player is not an acceptable excuse." I still haven't heard any reason why someone who breaks a rule shouldn't pay the prescribed penalty. You're a big old whiny pants.

Horry, as his history shows, is a dirty player. He was dirty when he played for the Suns and he is dirty now. His foul was hard and uncalled for.

The Suns in question should not have been suspended due to the fact that the rule only applies in regard to an altercation. There was none.

Neal (and all of us Suns fans, not to mention pretty much the rest of the rational world) is spot on on this one; Stern and Jackson completely blew this decision, and now they're being intellectually dishonest in defending it. They all keep repeating the party line: players can't leave the bench during an altercation, the rule is clear, and it's ALWAYS been enforced that way. All demonstrably false. At the outset, actually read the rule. It does not simply apply to when a player "leaves the bench". In fact, there's no such language in the rule. The rule reads:

"During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench."

For the NBA (or anyone) to simply say that they had no discretion in applying the rule, and that the rule is "clear" simply defies logic (and the English language) in the face of the actual text of the rule. First, "immediate vicinity of the bench" in fact implies that a player can leave the bench and still be in the "immediate vicinity" of it without violating the rule. Nobody disputes that Stoudemire and Diaw had taken no more than 3 or 4 steps away from the bench (which is defined by rule as the 28' line on the court)before they were held up. Second, the rule is not as unyielding as people are making it out to be. What consitutues "Immediate vicinity"? 1 step? 3 or 4 steps? 2 feet? What consitutes "altercation"? At the moment they were running up the floor, all that had happened was the foul. Diaw and Stat could have just as easily been going to check on the fallen Nash. Thus, the rule in fact allows for level-headed, business-savvy interpretation (the NBA is, after all, an entertainment business, is it not?), on which the NBA has completely missed the mark. Seriously, we're not talking about consistent enforcement of the drug or murder laws here. Watching these games is entertainment, and a Suns-Spurs game without Diaw or Stoudemire (30+ pts, 10+ rebs 5+ asts combined) is not entertaining to anyone, and I personally won't watch (except to see how loud the crowd boos at the start of the game tonight). Finally, while everyone says that there's been a precedent established for the harsh, rock-headed imposition of the rule, just read Stu Jackson's own remaks after he handed out no suspensions after a brawl in the portal after a meaningless Kings-Lakers preseason game:

"Our policy regarding an automatic suspension for players leaving the bench was not intended to apply in a highly unusual situation like this one, where an altercation occurs in an access tunnel or hallway. In this circumstance, our judgment was that the players who left the bench were attempting to break up the fight and did not escalate the altercation."

So where's that level-headed judgment here? The argument is almost too easy -- NBA got it flat wrong in every respect here. They interpreted the rule poorly, they exhibited ZERO common sense, and they've just handed the goonish Spurs the series. (And of course, as the stupid, diehard Suns fan I am, I continue to hold out hope that the basketball gods -- or David Blaine and his magnets -- somehow will the Suns to an improbable 75% shooting night and a game 5 win.)

Omar nails it. The rule is clearly open to interpretation as the Lakers-Kings example illustrates. Unfortunately, the fact that that was a preseason game, and this was a playoff game, leads us to understand the NBA’s wrongheaded rationale behind this ruling. Follow me here:

Because this was Game 4 of the best playoff series going, Stern & Co. felt the harsh glare of the media spotlight and reacted accordingly. They reacted, not based on what's right or fair, but based on reputation management and media savvy. They reacted to the racism-tinged (if not racism-fueled) perception among those who aren't regular NBA fans that basketball is a "thug sport" and they made an example to carefully protect their “brand” in the eyes of those casual fans and the general public. They’re playing to the people who probably never tune into a regular season game but they sure as hell saw the highlights of the Horry altercation on the Today Show and they sure as hell get a little fright in them when they see a large black man with his tattoos showing. And they’re playing to the media who reinforce those prejudices -– the media who’ve probably shown Ron Artest throwing haymakers in the bleachers 20,000 times while largely ignoring the incontrovertible fact that our leaders have lied to us about things like war, torture, spying on Americans, etc.

I guess if you’re a shareholder in NBA Inc., you’re probably applauding the cunning with which Stern et. al. work the system and play the game. But if you’re a thoughtful person, with soul intact, you know this is more than a mere bullshit ruling – it’s pandering of the worst kind, for the worst reasons.

I don't have the benefit of having seen either the post-game incident or the Horry/Nash flare up. However, it seems to me that at least a few more people are watching a playoff game where a problem occurs during regulation time than would be watching a post-game flare up in an access tunnel. To be fair, the league is a brand, and it has to protect its image with the public, whether public perceptions are based on valid factors or not. I admit it seems unfair to the players and, especially, the fans. To paraphrase some judge, however, the NBA is akin to a court of law, not a court of justice. A truly strong team will rally back from these kinds of impediments, not collapse under their weight.

Bull fucking shit PhillyD!

The problem is that we live in a time where a bunch of asshole soccer moms, who don't even watch or care about the sport of basketball, will join their church and their fellow evil doers in a mass letter writing campaign to boycott the sponsors if the scary black men who make more money than them aren't punished for behaving as anything less than perfect gentlemen.

They will cry that they are being poor role models for their perfect little angels. And no doubt, no amount of bible study can stop their children from being tempted in to a life of lust, and crime if they have to view somebody like Stoudemire taking a few steps off of his bench as Nash is being brutally thrown to the floor.

If the NBA wants to protect its image from the part of the public who doesn't give a shit about the NBA, then you are very right. If they want to protect the public who actually watches, and is therefore more likely to buy the products that are advertised during the game, then they would have made the opposite decision.

It would seem to me that this choice was made by the NBA to help sex up the playoffs. They wanted to throw in a little controversy, push this series out a few more games, and boost the ratings.

A truly strong team can work their fucking asses off for an entire game and do everything in their power to win, but when out two players; their odds of winning are not so good. It takes more than heart to win a basketball game.

the theory expressed elsewhere - ABC is pushing the Eva Longoria/Parker angle and wants the Spurs to advance. no, it doesn't make sense, but neither does this.

Look, this may be the Tomjanovich/Washington event of the game's recent nadir. if not this, then the Utah/SA series certainly would be. But first, I see the Suns winning 2.

"During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench."

One player got thrown into a scorer table, Raja "The Clothesline" starting marching on Horry and got an elbow to his mouth. In fact the second day suspension was for throwing that elbow, not the hip check. You don't need Stan Van Gundy hanging on a guys leg for an alteraction. This met the definition to a dispassionate viewer.

As David Stern said, Amare ran 20 feet up court. That is as to vicinity of their bench as Steve Nash is to handsome.

No one has explained which exception should apply here and that is because none exists. Alteracation, run up court, you're suspended.

I was impressed by how the Phoenix team, as opposed to their fans, man-upped and almost beat San Antonio. No whining, crying and attenuated logic from them. Bravo!

"During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench."

One player got thrown into a scorer table, Raja "The Clothesline" starting marching on Horry and got an elbow to his mouth. In fact the second day suspension was for throwing that elbow, not the hip check. You don't need Stan Van Gundy hanging on a guys leg for an alteraction. This met the definition to a dispassionate viewer.

As David Stern said, Amare ran 20 feet up court. That is as to vicinity of their bench as Steve Nash is to handsome.

No one has explained which exception should apply here and that is because none exists. Altercation, run up court, you're suspended.

I was impressed by how the Phoenix team, as opposed to their fans, man-upped and almost beat San Antonio. No whining, crying and attenuated logic from them. Bravo!

Sorry about the double post. I'm a moron

If the NBA wants to protect its image from the part of the public who doesn't give a shit about the NBA, then you are very right. If they want to protect the public who actually watches, and is therefore more likely to buy the products that are advertised during the game, then they would have made the opposite decision.

Sadie, like it or not, those are the realities of the commercial world we live in. Sponsors are sensitive to what the public at large thinks, rightly or not. Here, it isn't only NBA fans who purchase the sponsors' products. The sponsors don't want to be associated with a bad broadcasting product that offends signficant segments of the public at large. For example, Imus wasn't dropped because advertisers feared Imus fans wouldn't purchase their products anymore. The network gave in to a hew and cry from a lot of people who never listened to Imus. (I'm no Imus supporter myself. I've never heard his show.) They had to protect their network brand. Don't get me wrong: I'm no fan of "asshole soccer moms," as you describe objectors. However, those are drawbacks of the commercial system that is professional sports broadcasting in a market economy.

And taking two players out in one game has no effect on a team's ability to rally in subsequent games, assuming it wasn't an elimination game. That's where you see the difference between champions, who can overcome adversity, and whiners, who look to excuse their failings by blaming others or adverse circumstances.

Do you really think if Sally Soccer Mom wrote them a letter threatening not to buy their Hyundai or a Bud, they would be worried, long term? I don't buy it.

A couple of guys getting off their bench when their buddy had been thrown down is not the same as Imus calling accomplished females in college basketball names, either. Let's put some perspective on this.

At the very worst, asshole soccer moms everywhere would threaten to stop buying bud, while their husbands went out and bought it anyway. While they may really, really want to stop buying Hyundais, their shallow Wal-Mart obsessed minds just couldn't help but stay inside the box and get the absolute most gas-guzzling car for their buck.

I agree with you entirely on your last point - taking 2 great players out for standing up when a shitty player (who averages what 3 points a game) pushes your ace to the ground is only going to affect one game. The purpose of this punishment was therefore to extend the playoffs, stir up a little controversy, and increase the ratings and revenue dollars.

This decision was all about money, at least we can agree on that.

Paperpusher,

It's so ironic you would compare this to the Tomjanovich/Washington punch-up, because that's what this rule was designed to prevent. A bench-clearing brawl would be a horror in the NBA. The players are so big, and so muscular, they could do serious damage to each other. It's not like a hockey fight, which is mostly grappling, because it's so hard to get traction on ice skates. Remember, Kermit Washington wasn't looking for a fight. He spun around and swung when he saw Rudy T. running down the court to aid a teammate -- exactly what Diaw and Stoudemire were about to do.

The Suns may lose the series, but if this ultimately prevents another guy from getting his face bashed in, it's the right call.

After Detroit wins the NBA title, no one will remember this anyway.

I can't follow the bigoted cant about "asshole soccer moms" from post to post. First they allegedly have influence, then they don't.

Ultimately, it's a legitimate discipline call, irrespective of the NBA's motive. Vitriolic rhetoric won't change that. I say suck it up and play ball. Besides, whining and pouting about it sets a bad example for the kids.

PhillyD - Please note that no actual movement was started by soccer moms. The point of my first statement was that we live in a time where this hypothetical could actually happen, mind you it did NOT. So despite the fact that they can join together with their coalitions to protect family values, let me assure you they did not. And even if they had their threats would be quite laughable and not a valid reason for pulling Bud’s advertising dollars from the NBA. This would be why I feel the only logical explanation for the NBA’s decision was to extend the playoffs – a statement which you seem to agree with.

You can call me bigoted against soccer moms any day. I will gladly accept that title! I am trapped in the suburbs…surrounded by soccer moms who are lovely people, we just disagree on most things in life. I’m OK with that and my crazy soccer mom neighbors are OK with their crazy liberal neighbor who hates soccer and loves football.

What no one is mentioning is that to ask a player not to stand up and step forward to see if his friend and teammate has been injured is to ask the impossible, which no rule should do. Stern had a million ways he could've shown compassion and common sense while still maintaining the rule (there was no altercation, Stoudemire was checking in, they never made it out of the vicinity of the bench, defer the suspensions to next season, etc), but he chose not to. So I think this is about money, sure, but also about Stern's love of power. Basically he needs a good talking to from Aunt May about the responsibilities of great power.