The league needs to re-examine the intent of the rule. Its intent was to keep fights from escalating, not to nit-pick the vicinity of the players on the bench. It's a good idea for a rule, but enforced in the wrong way, which is why it didn't prevent the horrible fights in Detroit and Indiana.
Ironically, the rule worked yesterday, which is why the suspensions are so ridiculous. Amare and Boris reacted naturally to a teammate going down ... as Duncan did earlier in the night. The coaches, knowing the rule, told them to go back, and both players regained their heads and went back to the bench without incident. The most important thing to remember is this: they got up because it was a natural reaction ... they sat back down to avoid suspension. This was a perfect example of the rule thwarting a potential fight. Yet, they got suspended anyway. The fact is, they could have continued down the court, talked smack, got in players’ faces, and potentially escalated the situation into a bigger mess ... ala Detroit/Indiana ... and still only received a one game suspension. It's simply a very unwise interpretation of the rule.
Players aren't stupid for having an initial reaction. They're stupid for acting on it. Amare and Boris sat back down and nothing happened. The rule worked. But suspending them anyway destroys the intent of the rule. The only message suspending them sends is that once you step on the court, you're getting suspended, so you might as well make it worth your while. Now the suspensions negate the fact that cooler heads prevailed, it rewarded the flagrant foul, and most absurdly, it turns game 5 into a potentially dangerous game because of the possible retaliation by the players or fans.
This was a horrible ruling.
Ironically, the rule worked yesterday, which is why the suspensions are so ridiculous. Amare and Boris reacted naturally to a teammate going down ... as Duncan did earlier in the night. The coaches, knowing the rule, told them to go back, and both players regained their heads and went back to the bench without incident. The most important thing to remember is this: they got up because it was a natural reaction ... they sat back down to avoid suspension. This was a perfect example of the rule thwarting a potential fight. Yet, they got suspended anyway. The fact is, they could have continued down the court, talked smack, got in players’ faces, and potentially escalated the situation into a bigger mess ... ala Detroit/Indiana ... and still only received a one game suspension. It's simply a very unwise interpretation of the rule.
Players aren't stupid for having an initial reaction. They're stupid for acting on it. Amare and Boris sat back down and nothing happened. The rule worked. But suspending them anyway destroys the intent of the rule. The only message suspending them sends is that once you step on the court, you're getting suspended, so you might as well make it worth your while. Now the suspensions negate the fact that cooler heads prevailed, it rewarded the flagrant foul, and most absurdly, it turns game 5 into a potentially dangerous game because of the possible retaliation by the players or fans.
This was a horrible ruling.
