The arguments regarding the suspension rule for leaving the bench during an altercation parallels several theories of legal interpretation. Allow me to play the role of David Stern/Scalia in the strict constructionist view of the law:
The rule has been in place for years. Charles Barkley commented on TNT last night that he was the first person suspended under the rule. He's been done playing forever. Everyone knows the rule and, for the most part, everyone follows it. Those players that leave the bench have, rightfully, been suspended. Additionally, no one (at least to my knowledge) has ever complained about the interpretation of the rule prior to this particular instance. Why is it suddenly a problem? If anything, the NBA should be commended for the consistent and unbiased enforcement of its rules despite the status of the players involved and the portion of the season in which the incident occurred.
Quite simply, its a black-and-white rule and it has always been enforced as such. To use Scott's jaywalking example, if you know what you're doing is against the rules/law and you do it anyway, how can you complain when you're cited for a for it? Blaming the cops (or, in this case, the NBA) for the citation conveniently absolves the wrongdoer of liability for knowingly acting in a manner they shouldn't have.
Phoenix fans should be blaming their idiot players for getting themselves in this trouble and possibly costing their team a shot at the conference finals (where they'd face an inferior Utah team).
In regard to Duncan's coming on the court after Elson's dunk: no suspension was warranted because Duncan didn't break any rules. The rule states that a player cannot leave the bench during an altercation. There was no altercation (both players got off the deck and ran back down the floor) and, consequently, no rule to be broken.
Had Raja Bell alertly hit Elson in the face once he saw Duncan on the court, maybe Duncan deserves a suspension.
The rule has been in place for years. Charles Barkley commented on TNT last night that he was the first person suspended under the rule. He's been done playing forever. Everyone knows the rule and, for the most part, everyone follows it. Those players that leave the bench have, rightfully, been suspended. Additionally, no one (at least to my knowledge) has ever complained about the interpretation of the rule prior to this particular instance. Why is it suddenly a problem? If anything, the NBA should be commended for the consistent and unbiased enforcement of its rules despite the status of the players involved and the portion of the season in which the incident occurred.
Quite simply, its a black-and-white rule and it has always been enforced as such. To use Scott's jaywalking example, if you know what you're doing is against the rules/law and you do it anyway, how can you complain when you're cited for a for it? Blaming the cops (or, in this case, the NBA) for the citation conveniently absolves the wrongdoer of liability for knowingly acting in a manner they shouldn't have.
Phoenix fans should be blaming their idiot players for getting themselves in this trouble and possibly costing their team a shot at the conference finals (where they'd face an inferior Utah team).
In regard to Duncan's coming on the court after Elson's dunk: no suspension was warranted because Duncan didn't break any rules. The rule states that a player cannot leave the bench during an altercation. There was no altercation (both players got off the deck and ran back down the floor) and, consequently, no rule to be broken.
Had Raja Bell alertly hit Elson in the face once he saw Duncan on the court, maybe Duncan deserves a suspension.
The bigger question (and fundamental argument for a strict constructionist theory of legal interpretation) is, if the NBA was to attempt to examine each situation and assess a penalty, a slippery slope of inequity is created which practically screams for favoritism.
A great example of this is the enforcement of suspensions for flagrant fouls. In just the past week, the NBA has handed out a game suspension to Robert Horry for his flagrant foul on Steve Nash (I know he got two games, but Stu Jackson's explanation was that Big Shot Bob got one for the foul and a second for throwing a forearm at Raja Bell's head). However, Baron Davis gets no suspension for going WWF upside Derek Fisher's head and Jason Richardson gets nothing for catching Memet Okur (and his gizzard) in the air and slamming him on his back. Davis' elbow was as blatant a cheap shot as I can remember (and I have some vivid memories of Bill Laimbeer). Richardson's flagrant less so, but I don't see how it was any more or less hard/intentional than what Horry did to Nash.
So the two best players on an upstart Golden State team that has generated a significant amount of attention after beating the Mavs are not suspended for 1) a more blatant elbow to the head of an unsuspecting player nowhere near the ball; and 2) an equally hard/intentional foul by a player more important to his team than Horry. Yet Big Shot Bob is sat down for a game? Inexplicable, other than someone in the NBA league offices (Stern/Jackson) made the determination that they couldn't hurt Golden State's chances by suspending either of the best two players on the league's new "it" team, but have no problem suspending a role player on a deep team like the Spurs. Interesting how allowing the league to liberally interpret its rules works out huh?
Applied to the instant altercation, where do we draw the line? Is there even a line to draw if the rule is left to the interpretation of league officials? More importantly, do we trust the powers that be in the league office to draw the non-existent line? I don't.
Nobody is naive enough to believe that the league works in an altruistic manner and is above protecting its financial interests at the expense of the rules if they can get away with it (see: Davis/Richardson non-suspensions). With this understanding, how can interpreting a long-standing, long-enforced rule on its individual merits possibly be in the best interest of the NBA and its fans? It simply provides the league with a way to weasel out of punishing players who clearly lack the personal fortitude to restrain themselves during on court altercations.
In a broader sense, it also may alleviate the personal accountability for these failures as well. Any chance Baron Davis or Jason Richardson learned a lesson by not getting suspended for their actions? No. Further, there isn't a chance in the world that players watching the non-suspension took note either. The non-suspensions do not deter the ultimate goal of calling (and suspending for) flagrant fouls: less of them so as to prevent serious injury.
Just the same, a rule individually interpreting the bench clearing rule for on-court altercations would not deter such activity as the strict construction rule has. The proof is in the pudding: nobody came off the bench in the Knicks-Nuggets brawl (probably the largest scale fight since the Palace got crazy if that even counts b/c its was the fans fighting the Pacers and not the Pistons). In fact, there hasn't been an all-out bench clearing fight in the NBA that I can recall in years. Obviously the rule is doing the trick.
