May 16, 2007

Fix the Damn Rule Already

In a brief moment of serenity, I came up with a fix for the future. The problem with the rule is that it lays out harsh punishment for minimal behavior with supposedly no room for interpretation (as bogus as that notion has proven to be). This whole mess can be cleared up by adding verbage that gives the league a choice in the matter, so Stern doesn't feel upset or saddened that he is "forced" to make such a tough ruling.

As it stands, leaving the "vicinity of the bench during an altercation" carries an automatic one game suspension and fine of $35,000. One is too harsh, the other is pocket change to a millionaire athlete.

The rule needs to be changed to state that leaving the bench will result in a one game suspension AND/OR a $200,000 fine or 10% of a player's earnings, whichever is less.

The "and/or" immediately gives the league room to maneuver in terms of deciding whether or not a player's action is actually bad enough to warrant a suspension. At the same time, for situations just like this, Charles Barkley, and Patrick Ewing, the players can still be punished rather harshly for breaking the rule, but not so much that it affects the entire team. And the fine itself carries weight because it penalizes a scrub as equally as a star.

I don't care if I'm making $12 million a year, a $200,000 fine is going to hurt and be on my mind if something bad happens. But if I'm making the league minimum, giving away 30% of my pay for one step is hardly fair, so the fine is proportional to his pay. $75,000 is just as harsh to a bench warmer as $200,000 is to a starter.

The whole idea is to prevent an entire team for being penalized by the actions of one or two players, and also prevents an offending team from receiving the greater benefit in an important game.

Is that fair? Is that correct?

*Update:

The very least the league could do is add the words "and causes an escalation" right after "vicinity of the bench". Imagine, a rule which allows for interpretation and judgement. Why has our judicial system not picked up on that?

No comments: