A guy, a lawyer to boot, called in to a radio program down here with a really good point. Just because their action violated the written letter of the rule does not mean the commissioner's hands were tied and he had to suspend them. A rule is a rule, just like a law is a law, but we see judges challenge laws every day if it is a bad law. The judge, or commissioner, is to look at the intent of the law, or rule, and determine why it was written and then apply that to the case. The intent of this rule was to prevent an escalation of a physical altercation. No escalation happened, so, in essence, they didn't violate the intent of the rule, which means the rule is a bad rule because it doesn't allow for cases were the intent is followed.
He went on to add that a big component of judges' decisions is the condition of absurdity. If the outcome of a law results in punishing the intial victim and rewarding the initial violator, then the law should not be applied. So, in this case, the perpetrator of the initial violence, the Spurs, were given the advantage over the victim in the application of justice. This fails the absurdity test.
And, as we now know, that advantage was a difference maker. Bad rule. Bad commissioner. Stern is a joke.
Go Suns.