Can Danny?

While many people complain about the suspensions of Boris Diaw and Amare Stoudamire, the precedent for this has been set time and again, and most recently in the Knicks/Nuggets brawl this season. While some can claim that the suspended Suns didn't stray to far from the bench, neither did Nene or Jerome James and they were still suspended for their lack of involvement.

The big difference between the two cases, of course, is that no brawl took place in the Suns game however does a rule change simply because Carmelo Anthony wasn't around to throw a ridiculous sucker punch to help escalate things? Personally I don't think so and I think that most people who are now bemoaning the rule really need to step back and admit that the main reason they don't want the suspensions is because they don't want a great series to be ruined. The only reason there's a gray area is because people they don't want to be suspended broke the rule.

Look for instance at Steve Kerr. About the current situation, he's sided with the Suns and wrote on Yahoo! that:

In the past, Jackson and David Stern have held firm on the rule, punishing players for merely walking onto the floor a couple of steps away from the bench. There has been no flexibility. But would the league really feel like it was doing the right thing by suspending all of those players for basically doing nothing? I understand the reason for the rule – to avoid dangerous, bench-clearing brawls – but in both of the events in Game 4, no fights were involved. There were only altercations that never amounted to anything.
Jackson and Stern should take into account that not everything is black and white. They should be subjective in their ruling on this one, but again, they haven't been before.

Now while Kerr bemoans the lack of flexibility in the rule today, he had no such qualms earlier this year. In fact, it was quite the opposite. A USA Today story went:

TNT analyst Steve Kerr agrees that fighting will never be eliminated. But he says the league reduced the incidents of fighting significantly when it began automatically suspending players who leave the bench during an altercation, even peacemakers.
"The best rule ever put in is guys can't leave the bench," Kerr says. "Altercations are easier to quell because there are only a handful (of players) to control."

Perhaps Kerr meant to speak with an asterisk to clarify that the peacemakers and guys that leave the bench shouldn't be suspended if they are stars.

ESPN's Chris Sheridan lambasted Stu Jackson for his decision. He called the decision "utterly, profoundly, alarmingly, unreasonably ridiculous" and "stupid" and even called into question Scott Skiles's mindset when he agreed with the suspension. Skiles comment? "A rule is a rule, and in the past handful of years since they put that in, there have been I think less than five, maybe less than three, but there have been a couple occasions where someone just put one foot on the floor and got suspended. So if you're going to have a hard and fast rule like that, I think you've got to abide by it, and you can't make any exceptions."

While Sheridan thought Skiles was being unreasonable for this line of thinking, it really didn't stray to far from Sheridan's own thoughts from earlier in the season when he wrote, "Jerome James of the Knicks and Nene of the Nuggets appeared to leave the bench area during the fight, a well-established no-no. Prediction: 1 game each."

Sheridan saw no gray area for James and Nene. He looked for no exceptions. The rule was to be read black-and-white as it was "well established". However, when a great NBA series is on the line, suddenly rules are simply guidelines and up for interpretation.

This is the problem with knee-jerk reactions. When you just respond to an event with the harshest of penalties, you fail to look ahead and try to figure out ways in which these rules could hinder the league in the future. Nobody in the NBA or in the press ever took time to question the rule beforehand. They never pointed out that it could potentially be a problem. And now, I'm sorry to say, it's too late to bring up those complaints. The rule has been well established and if people want to change it, they'll have to wait for the owners' meeting this offseason. But for now, Amare and Boris did the crime so they have to do the time.

---

Ironically, if the Suns want to blame someone, they have to look at themselves. While many people think that the Knicks/Heat brawl was the precursor to the rule, the automatic suspension was made law earlier, in 1993, and the incident that probably incited this rule was when Kevin Johnson jacked the Doc Rivers (and Greg Anthony came off the bench to attack Johnson). A year later, the NBA passed the rule that anyone who leaves the bench is automatically suspended. This rule came into play in the Knicks/Heat playoff brawl and rose its ugly head again this year.