Suspensions not a fairness issue

I’ve heard a lot of criticism of the NBA’s Stu Jackson for suspending Phoenix’s Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw, each for tonight’s playoff game against the San Antonio Spurs.

If you’re criticizing the rule – that players will be suspended for leaving the bench area during an altercation – then I respect that. But criticizing Jackson for applying the rule or suggesting the league should somehow ignore its own rule in some gesture toward equity is wrong.

The rule is simple and every NBA player knows it: The league’s intent is to keep a fight from becoming a brawl by minimizing the number of players involved.

Jackson was asked on a national radio show Wednesday if what happened to Stoudemire and Diaw was fair, considering the Spurs’ Robert Horry instigated the whole thing with a cheap shot to Suns guard Steve Nash. I thought Jackson responded well, by saying this isn’t a matter of what’s fair, but rather a matter of what’s correct.

The league can’t have different rules for the playoffs or for perceived stars. And, frankly, the NBA has moved away from allowing its referees discretion to make subjective judgments for years.

Here’s the problem: If you ignore Stoudemire and Diaw leaving the bench, on the assumption they weren’t doing something malicious, then what do you do the next time something like this happens? Every team in the league will push that subjective line farther until this rule is a joke.

If this is a bad rule, then change it, don’t ignore it.

ON A COMPLETELY UNRELATED MATTER: There’s been some speculation around the NBA lately that the Bobcats might be interested in interviewing Los Angeles Lakers assistant Jim Cleamons.

Lakers public relations director John Black called me back late Tuesday to say the Bobcats hadn’t asked for permission to interview Cleamons or any other assistant (I also wondered about Brian Shaw).