Suspensions Marr Suns-Spurs Series
Stoudemire, Diaw suspended for Game Five; Spurs' Horry to Miss Two
The NBA handed out mandatory suspensions on Tuesday after Robert Horry's cross-checking of Steve Nash in the waning seconds of Monday's game four. But was it fair?
One day removed from his vicious blow which sent Steve Nash sprawling out of bounds and into the scorer’s table, one has to wonder if Robert Horry feels he got his money’s worth. It was no surprise when Stu Jackson, NBA Vice President of Basketball Operations, announced Tuesday that Horry will be suspended for two games without pay. Having played in the NBA fourteen years since leaving the University of Alabama in 1992, two game checks probably aren’t going to make much of a difference in terms of Horry’s quality of life – but his actions will most certainly affect the productivity of a thin Spurs bench in games five and six. Horry had been averaging six points, nearly four rebounds, and at least one blocked shot per game in the playoffs so far. The only other player coming close to those types of numbers off the bench has been the wildly inconsistent Manu Ginobili.
Reaction to Horry's Blow Bounces Stoudemire and Diaw for One Game
But Horry’s suspension wasn’t the only levied by the league office on Tuesday; both Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw were suspended for one game without pay for their role in the Horry / Nash incident. After seeing Nash hit the ground, both Diaw and Stoudemire sprang from the bench, seemingly intent on taking the court to assist their fallen teammate. Neither player actually made it into the small scrum of players who had begun to gather around Horry at midcourt, but were suspended by the league office nonetheless. Neither player threw a retaliatory punch, screamed obscenities, or even gestured wildly toward one of the officials – so why did the league office feel compelled to suspend the Suns’ leading scorer in Stoudemire (23.9 ppg) and arguably their best bench player in Diaw (7 ppg / 3 apg)?
Did the League Office Make a Mistake?
Simple: the NBA league office has said repeatedly and clearly that players cannot leave the bench during an on-court altercation. If a player leaves the “immediate bench area,” there is a minimum one-game suspension, plus additional games if the NBA so decrees.
A rule is a rule, and in order for rules to carry weight there must be punishment when the rule is violated – but what happens if the rule itself is unnecessarily strict? As Charles Barkley pointed out during TNT’s postgame coverage, the NBA has given itself no room to take each situation in consideration on an individual basis. There’s no wiggle room – the penalty for Stoudemire and Diaw simply moving eight to ten feet down the baseline incurred the same penalty as if they had actually made it onto the floor and maybe actually put their hands on someone. In essence, Stoudemire and Diaw were suspended for what might be understandably construed as a gut reaction to seeing your best player get bounced out of bounds by an opposing team’s bench player.
So Horry is banished for two games; this isn’t any great loss for the Spurs because Horry’s numbers are reproducible if anyone from the missing Spurs’ bench shows up for games five and six.
It’s just too bad that the Suns can’t say the same thing about game five.
Furthermore, how does the NBA respond if the Suns are routed in game five at home, and then cannot beat Spurs in San Antonio in game six after their starters return? Would the NBA then be willing to concede that perhaps they should have given themselves an out in regards to the mandatory-suspension rule? Will they then review and change the rule?
Probably not –when is the last time the NBA changed a rule to show leniency?
