Well, the difference was that the scuffle with the Pacers occurred about ten feet from the Pacers bench. So he couldn't go 25 feet because he really only needed to stand up and walk five feet to be in the mix. You're right, the NBA made that rule vague. I always thought it was clear cut, if you left the bench in a fight you would get a suspension.
Z-bo made a foolish mistake. But don't pretend like Memphis didn't put themselves in the situation of the 7th seed. They're better than that. They've showed it. Everyone knows it. George should have been suspended. Don't care if the rule has a "vague" area. Stepping onto the court is leaving the bench area. Toe or not. Bottom line is the court is NOT the bench area. Therefore suspension should have came down. undeniable.
I know you're trying to make a point, and as fans of a small market team, we all love a good NBA conspiracy theory, but you're making an applesranges comparison on multiple levels. Do you really think it's justifiable to suspend a guy who stood up and took two steps forward during a scuffle where: a) No flagrant foul was called b) No punches were thrown c) No one was ejected d) No one else was suspended It was a minor scuffle, not a full blown bench clearing brawl. Now compare that to the Horry/Nash altercation. a) Horry was assessed a Flagrant 2 for hip checking Nash into the scorer's table b) During the melee after the foul, Horry struck Raja Bell above the shoulders with his forearm c) Horry was ejected d) Multiple players were suspended - Horry for 2 games, one game for the flagrant foul on Nash and one game for striking Raja Bell above the shoulders The Pacers-Hawks incident was a minor scuffle involving two players that did not even warrant a flagrant foul, no ejections and no suspensions. It would have been absolutely stupid to suspend Paul George when no one else was suspended, ejected, or even charged with a flagrant foul. The Spurs-Suns incident was much more physical and involved many more players. Horry was called for a flagrant foul, ejected and suspended for multiple games for striking not one, but two Phoenix players. Stoudemire aggressively charged the court. George took two slow steps forward. Ultimately, both cases, because of the vague wording of the rule, came down to judgement calls. I believe Stu Jackson overreacted in 2007 and the penalties for the Suns were too severe and unjustified (and said so at the time). Because that was the general consensus, that off season the NBA reviewed that rule. The wording of the rule was left vague, but there was a call for a more common sense approach to enforcing it. Ultimately, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because Stu Jackson got it wrong back in 2007 by overreacting to a much larger, more physical altercation is no reason to make an even bigger mistake 7 years later. I'm glad to see Stu Jackson is no longer in a position where he is making these judgement calls and glad common sense is actually a factor when handing out suspensions these days. BNM
