Patrick vs. Stern

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by ColdShot

Unless you are Tim Duncan....then the same rule doesn't apply.

Actually, it's not the same rule. According to Stern, Duncan coming off the bench was to react to a hard foul, rather than an "altercation". The rule that applies to Stoudamire and Diaw is clear in that it says no player shall leave the bench area during an "altercation". If after the hard foul, there would've been some pushing and shoving, then Duncan would've probably been hit with the same penalty.

I listened to most of the Patrick/Stern conversation, and I found myself agreeing with the commissioner. Stern basically said - this is the rule, it's clear in how it's written and how it should be enforced. The owners voted to put in the rule and penalty. If they don't think it's appropriate, they should vote out the rule, and he would be happy to enforce whatever rule and penalty they vote in. It sounded as though he agreed with Patrick on the point that the fans are there to see all the players, and it's not fair that they don't get to see the teams with all their players because of some technicallity. Fine, he said, then don't go on the court. The players knew the rule, and went on the court anyway. Or, perhaps they forgot the rule, and the 6 asst. coaches didn't do their jobs in keeping them off. Maybe teams should have more than 6 asst. coaches? These are all points he brought up. Maybe the Suns should fire the asst. coaches assigned to keeping Stoudamire and Diaw off the court.

The rule is there, it's concrete, and he is there to enforce it. How is that any different than our position as officials? We may not personally agree with some rules, but do we get to ignore them on that basis? Or should we enforce the rules as they are given to us? Some rules give us judgement and leeway, others are straightforward. It sounds like the NBA and Stern followed the straightforward rule in this case.