The NBA Came To Their Senses And Decided To Not Suspend Michael Porter Jr After He Went Onto The Court During The Fight In Game 4

Rocky Widner. Getty Images.

After the dust settled following the thrilling Game 4 between the Nuggets and Clippers, things quickly shifted to a rather important decision that the NBA was on the hook to make regarding Michael Porter Jr and whether or not he would be suspended for stepping onto the court during that first half altercation.

When you watched the footage, it felt pretty cut and dry as to what the league would decide. Given how their own rules are written, combined with the precedent that had been established with previous instances of guys going onto the court, I don't think you were crazy if you assumed the NBA would suspend MPJ for tonight's pivotal Game 5.

Their decision? It appears as though common sense has prevailed, even if there are definitely going to be some Suns fans that are pissed with the decision given what we saw take place in 2007

As I wrote in my initial blog, I'm torn here. On one hand, I do not want playoff games/series determined by stuff like this, and regardless of what you think about MPJ as a player or how healthy he may or may not be, not having him available for a swing Game 5 is a pretty big deal when you remember how limited the Nuggets roster is. It was clear he didn't get involved, and the coaches immediately brought him back, so common sense told you to just look the other way and be done with it.

On the other hand, the rule is the rule. By the letter of the law, it sure seemed like MPJ violated the rule, and actions do have consequences. If you make a mental mistake like that, there's something to be said about having to pay the consequences for it.

Where I struggle with the NBA's reasoning is that it feels like the part about the "immediate vicinity" to the bench isn't exactly being applied here. Or perhaps I just don't know what the word "immediate" means? Because, based on what my eyes see, MPJ is basically in the middle of the paint

Would anyone logically describe that as the "immediate vicinity" of the bench?

Were they able to skirt past that part of the rule because even with MPJ going out onto the court like that, he was still pretty far away from the altercation? That feels like semantics, but you know what? I'm for it. It's clear the NBA didn't want to impact the series for a guy who wasn't involved in the fight, and it sort of reminds me of what the league did last night with Draymond and his flagrant foul as opposed to giving him a second double tech that would have gotten him ejected from a close playoff game.

Is it fair? I guess it depends on who you ask. Clippers fans probably don't love it as it now makes things just a tad tougher for them tonight, and you know Suns fans are bullshit over this decision. You could make the case that MPJ went further onto the court than Amare did back in 2007, but because Steve Nash was hip-checked closer to the Suns bench (and Duncan was further away when he stepped on the floor), Amare's action was wrong, and this was OK? That feels fishy to me. 

You could make the case that there's a decent amount of hypocrisy at play here, but at the end of the day, we should ALL want the best of the best to be available for playoff games. Had MPJ gotten involved? Fine. But in a 2-2 series with a massive swing Game 5 on deck, I'm happy this is where the NBA netted out. I also don't have a rooting interest in this series, so if you do, I'm sure you may feel a certain type of way about it. 

Also, sorry Suns fans. All this does is make what happened in 2007 look even worse. I'm not sure we can go back and award you the 2007 title, but you for sure got boned.