Rules are rules – unless you're Boston Celtics. The NBA's got a lot of explaining to do

Let’s go back to Game 4 of the Boston-Atlanta Eastern Conference first round series. During the game Kevin Garnett cleared himself of Zaza Pachulia by throwing a clearly visible elbow shot towards the Hawks’ big man. A foul was called and a referee tried to get Garnett away from the incident. Garnett shoved the official, meanwhile the Celtics’ Kendrick Perkins and Hawks’ Marvin Williams both stepped on the court from their respective benches.

According to NBA rules this should have resulted in immediate one-game suspensions for Garnett (for shoving the official), Perkins and Williams (both for leaving the bench and stepping on to the court during the incident). What followed however has been mind-boggling. The league announced that besides the technical fouls handed out during the incident no other disciplinary measure was to be taken.

This truly deserves an explanation from the league. Especially since the infamous rule of leaving the bench area and making it on to the court has been under scrutiny following the Phoenix Suns-San Antonio Spurs clash of last year. Amare Stoudamire and Boris Diaw both left the bench area when Robert Horry shoved Steve Nash into an advertising board. It was visible that neither Diaw nor Stoudamire was going to take part in a fight (they ran to Nash to see if he is OK), yet the league clearly stated that the rule cannot be misinterpreted – if you step onto the court, you get suspended. The same rule was implemented just as harshly in 1997 when the New York Knicks and Miami Heat got it on in a playoff game. Patrick Ewing was suspended for taking two steps on the court before turning back to the bench. What made these events memorable was the fact that they were close match-ups until the suspensions turned the tables. What is different then this time around?

Strictly according to the rule, Perkins and Williams should have clearly been given a one-game suspension. This would, of course, have drawn the attention on Kevin Garnett, the player who caused the incident. His elbow was clearly a flagrant foul, duly given. The shoving of the referee, again according strictly to the rules, deserves an automatic suspension of at least one game.

Now, Garnett’s defense is that he was grabbed by the official from the back and he could not see who it was, and he just wanted to shake him off. Having seen the incident, I really do believe that was the case, but does that suddenly allow the league to become lenient when they went with the rule word by word prior to this? It certainly opens up speculation of a league conspiracy to help the Celtics advance.

I do not really buy the conspiracy theory. First of all, it might not even have been Boston that would have been hit harder due to the suspensions. Atlanta plays with a much shorter rotation than Boston, so for them to lose Williams would have offset the fact that Boston would have lost Garnett, its emotional leader. Of course, on the other hand, Boston would have needed to dig deep for some frontcourt production as Garnett and Perkins are their starters under the basket. If it would have really been an edge, it might have been Atlanta’s, but it certainly would have been a slight one.

In all fairness, I believe the league office has made the right decision this time. They looked at all the circumstances, weighed all the actions, and then decided that the punishment would not have fit the crime. Much like I did not believe Ewing, Amare, or Diaw deserved to be suspended, I don’t see why Garnett, Perkins or Williams should be punished.

To me, Commissioner David Stern does not have to explain this decision – he needs to explain all the previous wrong decisions. Because, in hindsight, we have been robbed of what should have been a fantastic Knicks-Bulls series and of a fair ending to probably one of the best series in NBA playoffs history (last year’s Spurs-Suns) amongst others.

Alas, all I can do is ask: Mr Stern please explain your previous decisions …