This week, it's been really tough to find a sports type yakker who thinks that the one game suspension of the Phoenix Suns' Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw was justified.

Why? Because suspending to key players for violating a rule that mandates a suspension for leaving the bench during an altercation apparently should be ignored when the next game could be directly impacted by the suspensions.

So, since the suspended Suns actually play and contribute to the team on a nightly basis, they shouldn't have been suspended, even though they violated the rule.

How come nobody is blasting Raja Bell for trying to mix it up with the Spurs' Robert Horry, which created the 'altercation' that activated the no-leaving-the-bench rule? If Bell doesn't mix it up with Horry, then Stoudemire and Diaw don't get suspended for leaving the bench, right?

And how many of these sports yakkers would have been defending two players who never play for getting suspended in the same situation? If it has been Sean Marks and Pat Burke, who would have said that they shouldn't be suspended for violating the rule? Anyone? Anyone at all?