Be a leader instead of making a non-decision that any low-level by-the-book functionary could have made.  He could have acted like a commissioner and said that – for the good of the game – it would be wrong to reward foul play by the Spurs and that the two Suns would instead be suspended for one game during the 2007-2008 regular season.  (And then suspended Robert Horry for one month, without pay.)  Too much like a commissioner?  OK, he could have ruled that the Duncan move onto the court earlier in the game was also an altercation and suspended him too.  Too Solomonic?  OK, then here’s the decision he certainly could have made.  He could have ruled that there was no altercation with Horry and Nash – absolutely within his power since there is no clearcut definition of what constitutes an altercation in the NBA rulebook.   How many playoff games have hard fouls and players jawing at each other?  Except that Horry’s foul was absolutely premeditated – for which Stern REWARDED his team – this was a helluva lot closer to that than it was to Pistons-Pacers.  Yeah, it was a flagrant foul.  But were any punches thrown?  Did anyone get assessed a foul for fighting?  Did anyone interact even verbally with any fans?  So how is that an altercation any more than Duncan’s moment IF NOBODY ACTUALLY FOUGHT?  Sure there would be some spin doctoring in that ruling.  But is it MORE honest to pretend that justice was served, or that the fans were served, or that future on-court violence was made LESS likely, by suspending the Suns and ruining the playoffs?  How the hell was that good for the game?