David Stern Has to Suspend Dwight Howard, Right?

Our situation occurs about three minutes into Game Five, when Dwight Howard delivered a clearly deliberate and pretty nasty (not like Shaq's attempt to clock Brad Miller back in the day, but nasty in its own right) elbow that hit its target—Samuel Dalembert's dome. 

Henry Abbot at TrueHoop outlines the in-game ruling that should have been according to the Almighty Rule Book—immediate ejection.  But the referees decided not to enforce the rule for some reason, which brings us to my question: Is David Stern obligated to suspend Dwight Howard?

The Ruling:

Before I delve into the outrage of the matter—the answer is an unequivocal No.  David Stern is not bound by the Almighty Rule Book to suspend Howard.

Now, I'm from Cleveland and a Cavs fan, but I've been living in Phoenix for a long time, and therefore got to experience the outrage when the Commish suspended Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw for leaving the bench, even though they did not actually do any fighting, because the Almighty Rule Book forced him to by stating unequivocally that they had to be suspended. 

Yes, I know.  Wrong. Outrageous.  Unfair.  Let the players decide the game.  And so on.

Back to the matter at hand.  If you take a look at the Almighty Rule Book, though, Dwight Howard's fate lies solely in the hands of one Commissioner David Stern—much like the life of Bunny Lebowski seemed to lie in the hands of the Dude, or so Phillip Seymour Hoffman mistakenly said.

I digress—the relevant parts have been bolded:

Section VII--Fines

a. Recipients of technical fouls for unsportsmanlike conduct will be assessed a $500 fine for the first offense, and an additional $500 for the second offense in any one given game, for a minimum total of $1,000. If a player is ejected on (1) the first technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct, (2) a punching foul, (3) a fighting foul, (4) an elbow foul, or (5) a flagrant foul, he shall be fined a minimum of $1,000.

b. Whether or not said player(s) is ejected, a fine not exceeding $35,000 and/or suspension may be imposed upon such player(s) by the Commissioner at his sole discretion.

c. During an altercation, all players not participating in the game must remain in the immediate vicinity of their bench. Violators will be suspended, without pay, for a minimum of one game and fined up to $35,000. The suspensions will commence prior to the start of their next game. A team must have a minimum of eight players dressed and ready to play in every game. If five or more players leave the bench, the players will serve their suspensions alphabetically, according to the first letters of their last name. If seven bench players are suspended (assuming no participants are included), four of them would be suspended for the first game following the altercation. The remaining three would be suspended for the second game following the altercation.

This section is a mess.  There are so many questions.  For example (and yes, I am in full Tom Cruise circa the end of A Few Good Men mode right now):

• Why does the Almighty Rule Book take matters into its own hands in the case of players leaving the bench, but at the same time leave them in Stern's hands when it comes to the matter of say... One of the young faces of the league intentionally elbowing an opposing player in the head in Game Five of an unexpectedly-competitive series that his team could be poised to close out in two days, but could just as easily lose.
• Why does the Almighty Rule Book mandate that the referee must eject a player who intentionally throws an elbow that connects with an opposing players head, but not mandate Stern to suspend said elbow thrower?
• Why did the referees not eject Howard when the Almighty Rule Book is unmistakably explicit that they must?  If you remember, referees in the BOS-CHI series ran into this little problem the other day and almost ejected Brad Miller, but thankfully, the tape told the true story of Big Baby being, well, a little female dog.
• That picture at the top of the article came up when I searched for 76ers in the Getty Images database with the title April 28, 2009; Philadelphia 76ers vs. Orlando Magic; Game 5; David Stern. Was Das Commish at the game when the referees clearly ignored the Almighty Rule Book to which even Das Commish is bound? 
• If so, why did he not intervene and make sure the proper ruling was instituted (seeing as he was so adamant about it in the Suns-Spurs fiasco of '07)? Furthermore, why does the most powerful commissioner in the history of sports have to abide by the rules of an inanimate object?
• Oh yeah, remember how the referees in Hotlanta accidentally disqualified Shaq when he shouldn't have been disqualified?  If Howard clearly should have been ejected, and his presence in the game clearly effects the outcome, much like Shaq's absence, shouldn't this game be replayed damn-near in its entirety?  Seriously, though, I'm tired; somebody check for me.

(Warning, unnecessary and completely irrelevant fan rant.)

How is it that I can almost guarantee you that Phoenix fans will still be outraged by something that happened two years ago?  Furthermore, why are they still so upset about it? 

I'm the one who should be upset, because LeBron would have run wild over any other team in the Finals that year, and I would have been able to celebrate the first championship in Cleveland in my lifetime or my parents' lifetime! Or at least a competitive series!

And quite frankly (sorry just watched the SAS sock puppet video today), I want the TRUTH!

Stay tuned.  Will David Stern impose law and order unto these playoffs, or will we be looking toward a future of Code Reds?