Return of the Ripper

In rebuttal to "Scalia", a few thoughts:

(1) This has been an issue forever. Players, coaches and media have bashed this rule from Day One, and Barkley admitted as such on TNT when he questioned why he was suspended when he didn't "escalate the action." Jalen Rose questioned the rule in 1998 during a Reggie Miller-Ron Harper scuffle, Barkley questioned it in 1997...shit, the Knicks sued over the rule.

(2) The Rule has not always been enforced black-and-white - as I noted with the Doug Christie example, the league has found ways around it, finding they didn't "escalate the situation."

(3) What is an "altercation?" Barkley, myself, and scores of other columnists questioned whether the James Jones/Francisco Elson tangle up amounted to an "altercation." Does an "altercation" need someone to actually elbow someone or push someone? Does the altercation require the other players do something that warrants a supension for themselves? My gut says no, but if the league is going to police players leaving the bench so much, then I don't know.

(4) Agree with RJ on the flagrant fouls - Davis and Richardson deserved at least a game each for their play...actually, give Richardson two games just for going to that inferior institution up in Lansing. However, I wish the league went back to at least letting players foul hard, and not worrying about a flagrant foul-2.

(5) Players were suspended for leaving the bench during the Nuggets-Knicks brawl - Jerome James and Nene each for one game. I understand the basis for the rule, but it does not totally insulate the league from a full-scale brawl. The Pacers-Pistons melee and the Knick-Nuggets girl fight produced six of the ten longest suspensions in the league...both when the rule was in effect, and both included players leaving the bench.

(6) I actually agree with RJ that the suspensions were warranted under the rule as read. As I said "If you believe in enforcing the "letter of the law" the NBA had to suspend Stoudamire and Diaw, as they both left the 'immediate vicinity of the bench during an altercation.'" I just think the rule creates such ambiguity with as defined that the NBA can suspend someone, or choose not to suspend someone, as they please. If they wanted to suspend Duncan under the rule, they could - finding the little tangle up an "altercation" and Duncan walking out to the 3 point line outside the "immeidate vicinity." They just didn't want to.

(7) Fair point on not blaming the league ("cops"), and if the league enforces the rule (unlike jaywalking), you can't really blame anyone other than yourself. My point was that the NBA had a choice to not be a "Scalia" on the law, and be liberal in its view (like cops with jaywalking). The players didn't escalate the altercation, and the rule needs to be changed anyway. Why not find the player didn't leave the vicinity, didn't escalate the issue, and address the issue in the offseason? In a court of law would I agree with this view? No. As a fan of the NBA that doesn't want to the see the NBA remove two of the most impact players from a surprisingly competitive series? Of course. I think the NBA whiffed on this one, and anyone that doesn't think this didn't affect the outcome of Game 5 is an absolute idiot.

Side note - the Clippers once suspended Keith Closs because he was too skinny. Seriously.