Time to just let it out, NBA fans, in the name of, hopefully, one day being able to move on -- perhaps with some smart improvements to the way the NBA handles these kinds of things.

Assorted recent anger from my inbox and around the web:

• Brian Berger of Sports Business Radio: "Let me first start this column by saying since I was old enough to walk, I have been a fan of the NBA. I think NBA Commissioner David Stern is the best commissioner in the history of sports and he's a visionary beyond comparison. I worked for the Portland Trail Blazers for 6 years and thoroughly enjoyed being a part of the league. With all of that being said, I've got a real tough time swallowing the decisions that were made today in the league offices in New York. There's the spirit of the law and there's the letter of the law. I'm not sure if the NBA czars know which side of the law they're on."
• E-mailer Albert: "I love the NBA. I have my team but follow everything league wide. I have purchased League Pass. I have purchased playoff tickets. And I seriously do not know what to do. Last year the Finals were ruined by very, very suspicious calls. It left me totally bummed out and depressed. It left me wondering, 'why put this much time into watching if the end is so ... so ... questionable?' So you know what? I didn't buy League Pass this year ... and everything was fine. Then these suspensions will very probably ruin this year's playoffs. If Phoenix loses the next game and then loses the series. How, how can I take the NBA seriously? Bruce Bowen not suspended? Baron Davis, for god's sake,.. not suspended. Yet Amare and Diaw?!?"
• An online petition to the league: "Instead of hiding away in your offices and canceling trips to Phoenix to visit Cleveland, I think an explanation is not too much to ask when a series of this caliber is potentially ruined. Thank you for your time. Hopefully something can be learned from this and it will not be an issue in the future."
• The online game "Whack-a-Horry"
  
• E-mailer Michael: "This is what happens when David Stern, who may not have ever set foot on a basketball floor in his life, rules. I do like David, and he's done a lot for the game. But remember, Henry, power corrupts. It always does."
• E-mailer Jeremy: "I have read countless pieces on this, and none of them have pointed to one obvious fact: in the video from the game you can clearly see Amare taking off his warmup jersey. Sure he got up quickly, but was he really taking the warmup off to be able to swing away? Taking off the jersey lends credence to his explanation that he was on his way to check in when the play occurred."
• Matthew Powell of San Antonio Spurs blog Pounding the Rock: "Whatever happened to 'give the fans what they want?' Or 'the customer is always right?' The NBA, thanks to an iron-clad interpretation of a rule nobody has ever liked, has appeased ... who? Who's happy about this?"
• E-mailer Neeraj: "I have never seen such a negative reaction to a league action. Even Spurs fans are finding this indefensible. I know the league has been acting fairly authoritative in years past, but this trumps it all. I'm just wondering what you think the owners are beginning to think about the actions of David Stern. I know he rescued the league, but that was 20 years ago and one could argue anyone half competent could have, given the talent and star power."
• Adam Hoff at WhatIfSports: "There is no logical or rational reason that this is happening. And for people who are sticking to the 'this is the rule' viewpoint, I would like to turn their attention to something called the United State court of appeals. There are such things as bad laws and bad rules. I suppose it would be better to change a bad rule after the season as opposed to in the middle of it, but the NBA is acting as if these rules were handed down to them on stone tablets and they have no choice but to follow them. That is a cop out. These are the NBA's rules!"
• E-mailer Chris: "Bottom line for me is that Stoudemire and Diaw didn't leave the bench toward an 'altercation,' instead they ran to a downed Steve Nash ... THEN an altercation started. And what did Stat and Diaw do? They retreated to the bench."
• The Basketball Jones has a whole PG-13 podcast on the topic: "Does a single NBA fan approve of this decision? Will this verdict turn some fans away from the game? Doesn't anyone use common sense anymore?"
• UPDATE: E-mailer Annette: "I see no where in the written rules, where the league has specifically defined their use of altercation. Therefore, legally, and I mean legally, Stern and Jackson could be sued over the non-suspension of Duncan and Bowen. After watching the clip there was an 'altercation' between Jones and Elson and therefore, Stern and Jackson are in breach of their contracted duties by not sticking to the 'letter of the rules.'" UPDATE from a lawyer who prefers to remain anonymous: "During the 1997 Knicks-Heat suspensions, an attempt was made to litigate the league's actions. A federal judge ruled that the collective bargaining agreement, which called for most areas of disagreement between players and the league to be sent to arbitration, specifically provided for no arbitration -- and thus no remedy beyond the commissioner -- with respect to player discipline for conduct on the playing court. Thus, unless the relevant CBA provision has been modified (and it seems unlikely that the league would have been permitted it to be), any attempt to sue the league for its disciplinary decisions stemming from on-court conduct is precluded. (Note that this provision only reaches discipline for on-court conduct, which is why Latrell Sprewell was able to litigate his suspension.)"
• UPDATE: Joel emails: "My argument against these suspensions is this: In this entire situation, has justice been done? Is it just to suspend Stoudemire and Diaw? Is it just to keep two of the top seven Phoenix Suns out of Game 5 because of Robert Horrys ridiculous late-game foul on Nash? David Stern had an out here. He could have stepped up and said that in the defense of justice, he would not suspend Diaw and Stoudemire because the original hit was delivered by a Spur, the players were almost immediately returned to the bench before getting anywhere close to the fracas, and that he would not reward thuggish behavior by Horry by giving Horrys team an unfair advantage in Game 5. He could maintain that the rule would be revisited this summer and that the NBA is committed to never allowing or excusing fighting, but that in light of not suspending others during this postseason for actual physical violence he could not suspend two players that never got close to touching anyone. Rules and laws exist for the sake of justice. Justice lost here."
• UPDATE: Joshua emails: "I have been a Suns fan since I was a kid. I live outside of Arizona now and still watch all of the games. My wife thinks that I love the Suns more than I love her. Although that is not true, she has a good argument. My biggest dillemma is this, do I root for the Suns to win without Stoudemire and Diaw in the game because I want them to win a championship more than anything? Or, do I hope they get clobbered to make sure that Stern and Jackson don't get let off the hook? Can I still love the Suns and hope that they lose to expose what a group of idiots are running this sham of a league? Would I be a horrible fan if I thought that even if we lose Game 5 and win 6 and 7 that it still would not solve the way that the league has screwed the Suns? I signed the petition, but how else can we all show the league how horrible this decision was?"
• UPDATE: Charles Barkley on TNT last night: "(The league rule penalizing players for coming off the bench) is bogus and unfair. It might be a good rule if it was enforced the right way. They rule was designed for guys coming off the bench throwing punches and making the fight worse. I thought it was a good rule if a guy comes off the bench (and causes more trouble). There is a normal human emotion when something happens from the bench, your emotions stand you up and you walk towards it. (Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw) are breaking the rule, but they didnt escalate the situation and thats what the rule is for."
• UPDATE: E-mailer Matthew: "I just wish the NBA would really make this a fair deal and bring Joey Crawford back to referee this game. Now that would be real justice!!"
• UPDATE: E-mailer Seth: "Why is no one blaming the players? As much as I think the rule is a bad one and that you could conceivably question its ambiguity, the fact is the players broke a rule. Do I think its bad for the playoffs this occurred? Yes. But Amare and Diaw deserve the brunt of the blame. They are the ones costing us a great game yet everyone was expecting the league to bail them out, and then blames the league for not doing so."
• UPDATE: E-mailer John: "Forgive me for saying this as it is somewhat beyond the pale. But an extension of the argument to blindly adhere to the rules was seen in Hitlers Germany. If you see the very old movie called Judgment at Nuremburg it depicts quite well how the justice system in Germany abdicated their responsibilities to exercise reason and imposed unjust decisions (crimes against humanity) on the accused merely because the laws of Germany dictated it so. Some of the judges were found guilty and were hanged. This is another extreme example to be sure but it has a point in it about the application of justice inside a system of rules whether they are the laws of a country or rules inside a large organization. Rules and laws are 'guidelines' and should be interpreted within context and not used as absolutes."
• UPDATE: Basketbawful: "'Zero tolerance' rules are designed by people in positions of power who want to absolve themselves of the need to use logic or wisdom. They can always fall back on this excuse to disarm their critics. The granddaddy of all zero tolerance rules is that the referee is always right, but when Joey Crawford threw Tim Duncan out of a game for laughing at his calls from the bench, the league decided that Crawford needed to be punished for his behavior. Apologists for the NBA can say that Crawford was punished because he asked if Duncan wanted to fight, but asking 'Do you want to fight?' is the lamest of aggressive things ever said on a basketball court, even by officials. Crawford was punished because, against all reason, he chose to eject one of a team's critical players during one of the league's critical matchups. And now the NBA is doing the exact same thing."
• UPDATE: Sam Rubenstein from SLAM: "It makes perfect sense that this horrible season will end with another taint. The MVP is tainted because he choked in round one. The rookies are tainted because the league banned the best young athletes from being allowed to play this year. The lottery process is tainted because half the league was losing games on purpose. The standings and statistics were tainted with all of the injuries to superstars. It makes perfect sense that the season would go this way."
• UPDATE: E-mailer Randy: "If the purpose of stopping brawls is to prevent fans from being deprived of the services of their favorite players, perhaps a better rule is that automatic suspension occurs if a player off the bench touches an opposing player after an altercation has begun. But simply leaving the bench is a judgment call. Another idea is to install electrical fences around the benches, to be activated by the coach in the event of a brawl. My final thought is to hire Chuck Liddell as an assistant coach during the playoffs, and have his sole job be stopping players from leaving the bench."
• UPDATE: A bunch of ESPN types weigh in.