But would an "EXTREMELY" conservative definition, and enforcing the rule strongly one in the same? To me it is.
No, it isn't.
The definition, and the strict adherance to the rule are two different things.
We don't know what constitutes an altercation to the league, which is what Patrick SHOULD have been asking. But clearly a hard foul isn't an altercation because that's what Stern says (no altercation took place there). And with Amare on the court during an altercation (the shoving) and being drawn back it's hard to clear him out. I still think Diaw could have skated, and again I think Patrick should have asked for definition of his suspension as well.
Patrick took a good opportunity to really clarify things and instead turned it into a challenge fest with a stupid question (good series, they are marquee players) that played into Stern's defensive posture. Instead, Dan could have asked very pointed questions to help EVERYONE be clear on what happened. What constitutes vicinity of the bench...is it just a foot on the court? What is an altercation defined as? Hard foul, shoving? When does a situation change from foul to altercation? Why didn't Duncan get a tech for being on the court? Etc., etc. Is it really that hard to get a feel for the questions people are asking? He probably could have had a very informative and interesting interview instead of the shoutfest and jackassery, but then the controversy wouldn't be as cool and the ratings as high.