Indiana Pacers coach Rick Carlisle has publicly detailed his frustration with the NBA’s recent $100,000 fine of the franchise, saying he was “shocked” by how the league handled its review and by what he described as the tone of the questioning during the process.
The fine was announced February 13, 2026, stemming from Indiana’s February 3 game against the Utah Jazz. The NBA said an independent physician-led investigation concluded that Pascal Siakam and two other starters could have played in that game, including with the option of reduced minutes, and added that the team could have rested players in other ways that would have better aligned with the league’s player participation policy.
Carlisle, speaking in comments shared publicly from a radio interview, said he disagreed with the punishment and objected to the league’s approach to evaluating Aaron Nesmith’s status. According to Carlisle, a league attorney conducting the interview “unilaterally decided” Nesmith, who Carlisle said had been injured the night before and “couldn’t hold the ball”, should have played, a conclusion Carlisle called “ridiculous.”
Carlisle’s sharpest complaint centered on what he said the league did not do. He stated the Pacers offered to connect the NBA with the team’s doctors and trainers, and offered the chance to speak directly with Nesmith, but that the league declined both. Carlisle said the league instead relied on its own doctors who did not examine the player.
He also described a moment from the interview process that, in his view, crossed a line: Carlisle said the league asked whether the Pacers considered medicating Nesmith so he could appear in a game, which Carlisle said left him “very surprised” and contributed to why he called the situation “unbelievable.”
The dispute lands inside a larger NBA push to clamp down on behavior the league believes threatens competitive integrity, particularly when teams sit capable players in ways the NBA views as inconsistent with policy. In its broader messaging around these enforcement actions, commissioner Adam Silver has criticized tactics that “prioritize draft position over winning,” warning the league will respond to actions that compromise the integrity of games.
Carlisle’s comments don’t change the league’s ruling, but they do illuminate the friction point that teams fear most when enforcement ramps up: not just being punished, but being judged on medical and competitive decisions without what they consider meaningful consultation with those closest to the player. For Indiana, the fine is already on the books. What lingers now is the bigger question Carlisle is plainly raising, who gets to decide what “available” truly means, and how that decision gets made when health, policy, and public optics collide.
