THE WORD IS "IMPERIOUS"

imperious , adj.

"domineering in a haughty manner; dictatorial; overbearing"

I understand that I am beating a Barbaro here (and on all days, the Preakness Stakes day), and I also acknowledge that as a Phoenix native and Suns fan, I'm in the midst of a personal bench-clearing bawl.

Having fessed up to that, let's review a few things. First, David Injustice is the type of man who is never wrong. He prides himself on knowing all the nuances of any issue and on making the proper decision. In the case of Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw v. The NBA , he ruled, at least in terms of the letter of the law, correctly.

However, as commissioner, he does have latitude. His word is final. And he might have acknowledged a few inconsistencies in the rule and judged in a manner that almost everyone (I haven't read or heard anyone who believes in what he did other than to say that, by the strictest terms of the rule, he ruled consistently upon precedent) who loves basketball would have applauded. To wit:

--If Tim Duncan leaves the bench in the 2nd quarter, why is that not an infraction only because no altercation took place? Does Duncan know that no altercation will take place in the time that he went from being on the bench to stepping on the court? Of course not. In retrospect you're telling the Suns that if James Jones had seen Duncan run on the court, the best thing that he could have done to help his team would have been to slug Francisco Elson. Because what Sun fan would not take a Jones for Duncan suspension straight up?

--As Steve Nash said in a post-game interview Friday night, what will forever haunt him (and let's be honest; this may be as close as Nash ever comes to an NBA Finals from here on out) is that the Suns did not instigate the altercation and that neither Stoudemire or Diaw came anywhere near to a Spurs player. In fact, and what few people have noted, is that Nash himself rushed at Horry. And, yes, he was technically on the court as a participant so the same rule does not apply to him as it did to Diaw and Stoudemire, but he pushed Horry. But see, Steve Nash is a 6'2" white guy.

--Kudos to Gene Wojciechowski (alias, The Typographical Terror) for his Saturday morning column on the series. The more prominent journalists who call out David Injustice and remind him that we're people here, and that justice trumps correctness, the better.

--Here's one quote from Injustice from his contentious appearance on Dan Patrick's radio show earlier this week:

It's not being decided by [Robert Horry]. It's being decided by two Phoenix Suns who knew about the rule, forgot about it, couldn't control themselves, and didn't have coaches who could control them. And don't you forget it. Now, is it exactly fair? Probably not. Is it a red letter rule? Absolutely. Did cost other players and teams their playoffs and championships? Yes. So, I guess there's no way for us to get the message through. Do you think next year the players will understand it?

For me, the key line there is the final one: "Do you think next year the players will understand it?" No, David, I don't. And not the year after that. Or the year after that. Or after that. Because it's unnatural to ask uber-competitive people not to react as Diaw and Stoudemire did. One question Stern asked rhetorically during an appearance on PTI earlier this week displays his ignorance of, or simple out-of-touchness with, the game he oversees. Stern asked, "How come nobody else on the Phoenix bench ran onto the court?"

Okay, David, I'll let you think about that one for a moment. What do Boris Diaw and Amare Stoudemire not have in common with anyone else on that Suns bench? Oh, yes. They'd played most of the game. Their adrenaline was at a much higher level than say, Eric Piatkowski's. But you wouldn't understand that, would you?

The point is, having this rule is not going to stop players in the future from reacting in the split second as Stoudemire and Diaw did. Why can you not at least admit that after one or two seconds, both players came to their senses and stopped? That no coach was going to be able to prevent Stoudemire from getting to Horry if he really wanted to? Stoudemire policed himself, because he was aware of the rule. He check-swinged, and he didn't go around. So why call the strike on him?

-- Yes, it's terrible what happened to Rudy Tomjanovich nearly thirty years ago. But, as many a blogger has asked, how come baseball seems to survive with the occasional bench-clearing brawl? It's funny. The Phoenix Suns had some fantastic teams in the early '80s, with Paul Westphal and Don Buse at guards, Walter Davis and Len Robinson at forward, and Alvan Adams at center. But it didn't matter. They just could never overcome Showtime, the mighty and magnificent L.A. Lakers (one of the very best basketball teams ever assembled).
Twenty-five years later, the Lakers are still screwing them. Steve Nash misses the crucial final minute of Game 1 due, basically, to the Magic Johnson rule. Because the odds of Nash bleeding on to Bruce Bowen and giving him a deadly virus are so high. Then there's Kermit Washington, whose monumental punch instigated the bench-clearing brawl rule (though it would not come down for years); and, of course, Cheap Shot Rob.
I hate L.A. ("We hate it!").

--This may sound blasphemous, so let me preface it by emphasizing that in no way are the sacrifices made comparable. But there was a moment late in the 4th quarter of last night's game when the ESPN cameras zoomed in on Steve Nash's face. The game was not over, but the score basically said that it was. You could see that Nash hadn't given up--he never would-- but that in his eyes was the realization that this magical season was over. And that this cosmic concatenation of unfair events had gone against him. That, despite his most valiant efforts, despite playing by the rules and doing things the right way, that he was going to lose. (and let's be clear here: the Spurs are a magnificent team; Duncan, Ginobili and Parker are sublime and Bowen, much as I despise him, shot the three better than any Sun this series).
And in that moment I saw another Phoenician. I saw Pat Tillman .
The Valley of the Sun has been blessed with two athletes in the past decade who embody every value of sportsmanship and courage that you'd hope your son or daughter would take with them. Both were/are undersized (for their respective sports) overachievers who possess traits that are far too rare in pro sports today, where we lionize athletes whose personal lives are so often a mess, whether it be because they're running dog-fighting rings or because their wife is sending their eight year-old son in to the locker room to snatch his cellphone so that she can discover whom he's hooking up with (answer: everybody).
And then you have Pat Tillman and Steve Nash. Two athletes who did it the right way. Who believe(d) that nothing worthwhile comes without sacrifice and dedication. And what happened? The very organizations whom they served, the institutions that should protect the most loyal and dedicated soldiers, have basically shat on them (excuse my French).
I don't have children .When I think about Tillman and Nash, I wonder how parents explain to them what happened and why. What lessons should any child draw from that?

--David Stern, I'm not arguing that you acted outside the letter of the law in your judgment. But you had the capacity to do the right thing, not just because of the circumstances (which amounted to--what's that term you lawyers use in civil trials?-- a "preponderance" of evidence) but because everyone knew what was just. This is the NBA; it's not the Texas penal code.
You messed up. Big-time. And if you don't think the Game 5 suspensions will be the lasting image of the 2007 NBA postseason, then you simply don't get it. You killed a mockingbird, Mr. Commissioner. That's what you did.