Take a Stern Look in the Mirror

David Stern made appearances on numerous media outlets to defend the suspensions of Stoudemire and Diaw for game 5. He cited the rule being the rule; it wasn't a choice, the suspensions had to be handed down. It was correct AND fair because the rule is the rule (Stu Jackson had said the ruling wasn't fair but was correct). Stern was pointing to consistency, which would be fine if the NBA was about consistent application of rules. The suspensions in the Spurs-Suns series don't jive with the lack of suspensions in the Warriors-Jazz match-up, and that's just the beginning.

After the Jazz took game 4 to go up 3-1 on the Warriors, I was chatting with my brother and wondering why the league was not suspending Richardson (for flagrantly taking down Okur with less than a minute left), Davis (for elbowing Fisher in the head) and Harrington (for viciously whacking Boozer across the head). I was fine with letting Harrington skate, although a donation to a charity for the blow would have been nice. It was at a point where the game was still competitive, and maybe he just missed. Maybe Carlos was quicker than Harrington thought. But, Richardson lost his cool after a crucial game had slipped away and appeared to try to injure (or at least send a message to) Okur when Okur drove to the basket. You may be piling on Okur for driving to the basket late in a game. It wasn't a blowout, and even if it was, it's basketball! The commentators got on him when he shot a 3-pointer on a subsequent possession as the shot clock ran down. Are the Jazz just supposed to dribble out the clock and then hand the ball over to the Warriors? That's ludicrous, and they shouldn't have to defend themselves at all times if they choose to continue playing. When did everyone turn into the NY Knicks? Davis elbowed Fisher, a former teammate. I'm pretty sure it was because things weren't going well for the Warriors and Davis was frustrated. That's no excuse for such actions. So, to recap, Richardson and Davis combined for a flagrant foul and an elbow to the head/shoulders. I wanted J-Rich and Baron to sit for a game, but Roy didn't want any punishments because it would cripple Golden State. He was rooting for the Jazz (he was on Carlos' rec league bball one year), but didn't want their series victory cheapened.

Robert Horry committed a flagrant foul on Steve Nash in game 4 of the Suns-Spurs series. Then, when confronted, he threw an elbow at Raja Bell. So, like in the GS game, a flagrant and an elbow late. Horry gets 2 games for his violations when GS escaped without any punishment. Does that really make sense? Why do Stoudemire and Diaw have to be punished in a manner consistent with the rule when the NBA office isn't consistent in punishments for different game 4's in the same round of the same playoffs?

Was Robert Horry punished more harshly than Richardson and Davis because the Suns reacted differently than the Jazz did? That doesn't make sense. If so, then any time you are flagrantly fouled, you should confront the offender in an effort to get him a longer suspension. That's not something the league wants if it doesn't want situations escalating! Was Horry punished more severely because he went after Nash? I hope not. Was Horry's punishment greater because Bruce Bowen had committed some questionable acts earlier in the series? That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. If Bowen's actions were so bad (I've met Bruce Bowen and talked to him and he's a nice guy, but I've never kicked someone (Stoudemire) or kneed someone (Nash) like that in all my basketball experience) then he should have been sat down. And, it doesn't really seem fair (or correct) if the only reason Horry was suspended for the flagrant foul was because the league HAD to suspend two Suns for leaving the bench. So ... what was it?

The problem with all the attention on Stoudemire and Diaw is that attention is being drawn away from the real problem and Stern is only contributing to the situation. The real problem should not be Diaw and Stoudemire leaving the "vicinity of the bench." Tim Duncan walked onto the court earlier in the game, but wasn't suspended because there wasn't an altercation at that time. So, let's think about it. The real problem is the altercation. The league doesn't want altercations escalating, but they shouldn't want altercations of this sort at all!

An analogy: our neighbors have a dog and are constantly having to remind their daughter that it is her responsibility to pick up after the dog, Molly (a nice yellow lab, if you were wondering). No matter how often they remind her, there is always some dog crap around. If they don't want to have any dog crap around they need to get rid of the dog, not increase the policing and penalties for not picking it up. To them, it's not really a big problem and Molly isn't going anywhere any time soon, but I hope you get my drift.

David Stern needs to drop the hammer on players like Robert Horry, Baron Davis, and Jason Richardson - guys who lose their cool and commit flagrant fouls late in games when the game is already wrapped up. At no time in the game are these actions okay, but I think they are especially horrendous late in games. The reason? The current punishment doesn't fit the crime. Look at the Jazz-GS game. Jason Richardson didn't care about getting tossed from the game because it didn't hurt the team. What's two more points when you're going to lose anyway? What is Richardson missing the last 37 seconds going to matter? If Richardson knows he's going to miss 10 games for a similar offense, I think he challenges the Okur drive instead of clotheslining him. Same thing for Horry. If Horry knew he'd be sitting for the remainder of that series and the next one, I think he'd commit a normal foul on Nash, rather than hip-checking him into the scorer's table.

One final point: Stern essentially laid the blame on Stoudemire, Diaw and the Phoenix Suns' bench (assistant coaches in particular) for not showing restraint in the situation. What about the original offenders? Well, no, but it's human nature, and that's the problem with the current rule. Who's most likely to get upset when a hard foul is made? The team getting fouled. So, the team most likely to get penalized for leaving the bench is the team being attacked. There needs to be a little bit of leeway on that side. But, more to the point, Stern needs to target the primary offenders ... the ones who are really showing poor restraint and poor sportsmanship. Stephen Jackson (taking down Dee Brown because he was mad at the refs), Davis, Richardson and Horry are the ones who lost their cool and lost their heads, much more than Diaw or Stoudemire.

And, I won't even start on the technical fouls (a bad look got you one early and now you can cuss out officials and not get one), traveling, delay of game, etc.