The Suns-Spurs Series Has Exposed a Double-Standard that the NBA Ignores

Before you even read this article you should know that I am a Phoenix Suns fan. I can't try and come across unbiased so I'll come out and admit that it is really hard for me to be rational when looking at the fiasco that resulted after Game 4 of the Suns-Spurs Western Conference semi-finals game.

I was outraged at the suspensions of Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw. Yet for different reasons than you may think.

I will be the first to admit that Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw did break the cardinal rule of 'leaving the vicinity of the bench during an altercation.' What bothers me about the ruling was that NBA commish David Stern and Vice President Stu Jackson both said that the ruling was not about what was fair but about enforcing the rules to protect the players on the court.

That's funny, I always though rules in sports were supposed to make the game fair? I guess not in the NBA.

On ESPN Radio's Dan Patrick show, the commissioner was adamant that the rule has to be enforced to protect players. He also said that when a player leaves the bench during an altercation, opposing players on the court have no idea what their intent is. I agree. The NBA does not need another brawl. The Miami Heat - New York Knicks brawl in 1997 and the melee at The Palace in Detroit in 2004 were two huge black eyes for the league and the league lost thousands of fans as a result.

Yet, if the NBA wants to protect itself from another brawl shouldn't the league do everything it can to prevent tensions on the court from escalating to where a player would come off the bench? After all if you are going to enforce this rule to the 'letter of law', even if it ruins the best playoff series in 10 years and creates a competitive advantage for another team, shouldn't your tough words regarding protecting players be backed up with tough actions?