NBA, David Stern, and the Phoenix suspensions
There has been so much talk recently about the suspensions of the two Phoenix Suns players and the "fairness" of the rule. Mr. Stern states that "the rule is the rule" and is as clear as black and white. Many of the talking heads on tv and radio are railing against the ruling, most citing either inconsistency or unfairness as their objections. I don't understand the inconsistency argument since the NBA has, in my opinion, been very consistent in applying the rule and fairness is such a vague argument. The question is whether the rule was properly interpreted and administered. Mr Stern argues that there is no gray area in the rule and the rule forces him to supsend the players and there is no discretion. I respectfully disagree. Here is the rule as it appears in the NBA rule book:
"During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $35,000. The suspensions will commence prior to the start of their next game. A team must have a minimum of eight players dressed and ready to play in every game. If five or more players leave the bench, the players will serve their suspensions alphabetically, according to the first letters of their last name. If seven bench players are suspended (assuming no participants are included), four of them would be suspended for the first game following the altercation. The remaining three would be suspended for the second game following the altercation. "
I wish the talking heads and especially Dan Patrick, who had an especially testy interview with Mr. Stern, would have asked one simple question-What distance is defined as the immediate vicinity of their bench? Since immediate vicinity is not defined, it seems as if Mr. Stern could have very legitimately cited that since the players were still within a reasonable distance of their bench (Stoudemire did cross the coaches line but he was still within few feet of the Suns coaching staff, Diaw never even cross the coaches line). Since it was a dead ball situation, there shouldn't be a penalty for simply being on the court, players are often on the court during dead ball situations. This particular situation was directly down the line from the bench so therefore you could see the coaches line but what about something that happens across from the bench? What then constitutes "immediate vicinity"? Unfortunately, after all the discussions on this, I am no closer to understanding when a player violates the rule.
posted by Jameson Roane @ 12:50 PM
0 comments
