[DesertCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Al,
I was unclear with that part, so I'll try to explain it. From what I understand, the spirit of the law is that, in order to prevent any incident from unnecessarily escalating, the best method of enforcement is a blanket restriction on players making a movement towards the court or the incident. I really do think that the spirit that the owners have wanted is a spirit that there is no grey area here. The letter of it lines up.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is grey area for Tim Duncan who was on the court because he was ready to intervene in a potential altercation, because it didn't become one. There is no grey area for Stoudemire because the potential altercation actually became one.

Imagine an NBA rule that a player who reacts in any manner after a foul call is suspended for the next game. Players would be coached not to react, but sooner or later an important player in an important series would react despite their coaching. They'd quickly recover but it would be too late and they'd be out. It would be a horrible rule because no human being can control every emotional reaction every time, it would be destined to fail and embarrass the league. The punishment would be outrageous for the offenders who simply roll their eyes or gesticulate, while it wouldn't be enough for those who attack the official physically.

This rule on leaving the bench is almost as silly. In Stoudemire's case, he had a human reaction, but was caught before he did anything. The confrontation didn't escalate into a fight, in fact, it hardly merits the term altercation (two guys jawing at each other). The NBA should be able to lessen the punishment when there isn't a fight, when the guy who leaves the bench doesn't get close to the "altercation", etc.

But the NBA apparently gave Stu Jackson no ability to take mitigating circumstances, which is stupid. And Stern has the ability to override Stu for the good of the game, but won't, which is even worse.