When we have rules and laws in society, they are designed to be left to interpretation. Time and circumstances change, and the application of the laws should be as flexible as the circumstances they are applied to. Even one of the writers of the Constitution thinks this should be a fundamental understanding when it comes to applying written law:
“Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Constitution should be regularly revisited, and expressed his concern that if it were not, society would crumble.” –huffingtonpost.com
If it’s good enough for Thomas Jefferson, it should be good enough for David Stern. Today we found out that Stern hasn’t learned anything from his previous mistakes when he is given the opportunity to interpret the NBA rulebook. On Monday night, Lamar Odom took a few steps away from the Lakers bench to act as a peacemaker after Trevor Ariza hit Rudy Fernandez with a flagrant foul. Odom was rewarded for his restraint by getting slapped with a one-game suspension. Here’s a video of the foul and its aftermath. Pay close attention to Lamar Odom stepping away from the bench.
I hoped David Stern would take this opportunity to set the correct precedent for any future players coming off the bench. The last time Stern was confronted with this situation, he basically ended the Phoenix Suns season. He repeated in every media outlet that he could find that “his hands were tied,” and the rulebook was very clear on this subject. As horrible as his decision-making process proved to be (and how disheartening it was to see the Commissioner avoid any accountability for his actions), I understood the logic that the playoffs are NOT the time to change rules.
This is probably the face that he made when he found out a few steps cost him an entire game's paycheck!
At some point, we have to look at the intent of the rule when it was written. This particular rule was put in place so the NBA wouldn’t have bench clearing brawls—if players were forced to stay at their own bench, skirmishes on the floor were less likely to escalate. It was NOT written to suspend players when they take a few steps away from their bench.
If we give Stern the benefit of the doubt, that he couldn’t change the interpretation of the rule in the middle of the playoffs, then we also understand that this would have been the CORRECT time to set the proper precedent. The Lakers are running away with the Western Conference, so a single game wouldn’t have effected their season either way. If Stern correctly ruled that Odom was not a threat to any of the Trailblazers, he would have given himself the flexibility that he claims he didn’t have 2 years ago.
It seems like a decision that would have had very little effect on the season. In the short term, it doesn’t matter if the Lakers have Odom available for a meaningless regular season game. But if David Stern played this situation correctly, he would have made the rule better in the long-run.
The league already got the Flagrant II and non-suspension ruling right with Trevor Ariza. Too bad they couldn’t get EVERYTHING right by using common sense and resisting the urge to suspend Odom for nothing.
Matt Reitz
Matt Reitz is an NHL Writer for ProHockeyTalk on NBCSports and the Editor-In-Chief here at ViewFromMySeats.com. When he's not shoving a mic in the face of NHLers or explaining why home teams should wear white, he's usually trying to figure out what song to play next on his iPod. It's a never-ending job.
