In Spirit vs. Truth

They say that rules are to be enforced by the letter of the law, yet we do 30 mph in a residential district and don't get a speeding ticket. We give one child who spills their juice on the carpet a mere "tsk, tsk", and the one who wrote their name in crayon all over the drywall gets put in timeout. Teachers, don't you sometimes let the A-plus student turn in their homework a day late yet give a "0" to the class clown if they do the same thing?

Rules are meant to keep order in society, to restrain those from doing harm to themselves or to others. We've seen rules get enforced differently in the gated communities as opposed to the Section 8 housing ghettos of America. There's a reason for that, and it's that same reason why Golden State Warriors forward Draymond Green didn't get suspended for tonight's Game 4 against Oklahoma City for the infraction you see above.

Now, upon further review I also believed that he shouldn't be suspended for what he did. For those who have played basketball, you know all about the purpose of deceiving the officials into giving you a phantom foul. He purposely attempted to flail and in the process happened to make unfortunate contact with the Thunder's Steven Adams. NBA Vice President of Basketball Operations Kiki Vandeweghe presented his views on the matter yesterday. However, not everyone believed that was the real reason for not suspending Green.

Noted ESPN personality Stephen A. Smith stated that the main reason they should not suspend Green was the fact that it wouldn't be right to have the Warriors play at full strength. He argued that it had nothing to do with the league rules, but moreso about ensuring that the Western Conference Finals would be more entertaining with Green playing, and that it's not fair to the networks or the fans who pay outrageous ticket prices. Although he did bring up that the intent to hurt Adams was not there by the spirit of the law, the truth is that the focus of his rant was more about entertainment than enforcement.

This is where I strongly disagree with his reasoning. Yes, I agree that he should not be suspended, but the need for entertaining television should never be a factor when it comes to enforcing rules. The NBA has had a history of being accused of favoring certain teams (2002 Lakers) and poor officiating on the grandest stage only reinforces that notion. I remember the outcry when the Phoenix Suns had two major players suspended for leaving the bench in the 2007 Conference Finals against San Antonio, and I agreed with the ruling back then. If that is truly the league's reasoning (although they'll never state it) then they are setting up a bad precedent down the line. Even though the spirit of the law can be interpreted, it should never cloud the truth of doing the right thing, regardless of fan reaction.