
Three Southland Sharks (NZ NBL) players arrested
Player 3
Also an extremely bright talent who would have been in consideration for the Breakers DP.

how to ruin your basketball career
nzbl style !
at least they weren't taking any performance enhancing drugs


The former Breakers player that is suggested to be involved, I have played against socially and is a pretty decent guy and not in character from what I have seen of his behaviour.

"Mystro/Macdub - legal eagles, or just gotten into your fair share of trouble yourselves? ;)"
got in my share of trouble as a youngster unfortunately.

I"ll wait to Wednesday.
There is always the possibility that I could be wrong naming the guys - I highly doubt it in this case - but I am not opening myself up to any defamatory proceedings.
The pub is smack bang in the middle of the CBD (and many people walk past it/congregate outside). There is CCTV footage available.

Well, NZ Hoops mentions a 19 year old player, and there's only one player I saw on that Sharks roster who fits that age unless I missed one. If he gets done for this, that could be a big blow for the Breakers.

It will be interesting stuff to see what the security footage shows as depending on where it was, I'm assuming that the area would have been well covered and provide proper angles just for cases where this might happen...
I wonder if it will be released to the public like a lot of the times when NRL players over here get in trouble... No doubt BBZL/Sharks will be requesting it to be able to make their own conclusions if the official punishments are light on, as surely you wouldn't have to be criminally convicted to receive a harsh punishment from the team/league...


Mystro/Macdub - legal eagles, or just gotten into your fair share of trouble yourselves? ;)

The ex-Breaker will be lucky gaining re-entry to the US ever again (he was there during the off-season trialling for a D-League team)
Regarding the punishment for any conviction (if that is the case), I wouldn't say the punishment itself is the most worrying thing. Instead, its the effect that the conviction could have on:
-his current Breakers contract
-his ability to travel overseas to play
-whether and what sanctions he faces from BBNZ/the ANBL (bet these will be light if convicted)
-and the shame factor
In any event, if the Judiciary wanted to show some balls and demonstrate that they are over the whole "sportsman + alcohol-fuelled violence behaviour" (like the NSW court did in the Packer case), this would be a perfect example.
Why? Because your talking about professional sportsman who are well enough known but who don't have the same status/aren't held in the same regard as other offending sportsman i.e. All Black Julian Savea.
A strict sentence against members of a semi-pro basketball team (involving professional basketball players) is going to go down better with the public than a strict sentence against an All Black. I know its a sad state of affairs.
There are aggravating factors that go against these guys:
-They were heavily intoxicated (vs. Sober bouncers/witnesses)
-They are 6"7ish - claims of Self Defence go out the window
-They were refused entry - hence they didn't have a valid reason to be in there in the first place
-They ran away down the street and hide from cops

The current Breaker (who I have already named and who's name is all over social media in regards to this incident) will have to hope like hell that it can't be proven that he was stomping or kicking heads otherwise he will have shit show of getting the charges downgraded to common assault to which he could receive diversion or a DWC for. Otherwisw like MACDUB said, he'll face the far more serious charge of assault with intent to injure which may carry jail time (more likely to be P.D).

He'll have a good lawyer who will bargain the charge down with the police prosecuter.
It is common to charge someone initially with a serious charge and later downgrade it if they plead guilty. His otherwise clean record, community service and the fact he is a young role model will all come into account.
The courts won't throw him under a bus or make an example of him due to his age and record. If he was someone with a history of violence then yes I would be worried if I was him.

Mystro,
Diversion cannot be used for a charge/conviction of assault with intent to injure. The offending is simply too serious.
Same thing applies to the rules of discharge without conviction - you have to show the offence isn't that serious. Not undermining the seriousness of DUI, but athletes use a DWC for DUI. Assault with intent to injure is in a different ball-park. Courts are guided by societal reaction - given how much NZ Media and fans (and Aussie media/fans) are sick of alcohol-fuelled offending i.e. Packer , I can't imagine a DWC for the player named above would go down well.
You're talking about some serious stuff.
I know we don't rely on Australian precedent obviously - but Packer got a 2 year sentence.
Take into account NZ's weaker sentencing, but jail time is a possibility for "Player X" (The ex-Breaker)judging on what the many witnesses are saying.
There is sober witnesses coming out and saying he was basically stomping on the guys face multiple times. The charge could be upgraded to Grievous Bodily Harm on Wednesday.

[current Breaker] will prob get diversion, fine & community work & no conviction recorded. If he already has used his diversion he can apply for a section 19 discharge without conviction.
If he's used both of those he will be convicted of assault, fined and sentenced to community service.


Yep, and I'd imagine he wouldn't be too impressed. I see him as a no-tolerance type of coach.

Very bad look for the Southland Sharks & the Breakers if one of their contracted players is involved.

The facts don't look like great reading for the organisation:
- Team gets come from behind win on buzzer beater - leads to the celebatory nature straight away
- Kicked out of other clubs in the area (the pub received word not to allow then in due to intoxication)
- One didn't have ID.
- Players were trying to flee when the Police got them (would they need to run if they were innocent?)
- No word from Southland yet

NB: provocation is not a defense in NZ.
Even if the Breakers player didn't throw the first punch, he can still be convicted of the charge of assault with intent to injure (which is what ALL 3 were charged with).
Id imagine the three of them did some serious things to be the guys singled out from a whole team.
They didnt get let in, the bouncer would have been in his right to use reasonable force to remove them. They have no grounds - will be tough to convice the court that some 6"7 dudes were acting in SD (in any case the force used by thr bouncers and the club managers was necessary and reasonable and they had grounds to do so).
But I will let the judicial process play out as I am cautious about pre determined thinking

The charge is punishable by a prison term not exceeding 3 years.
You can bet your bottom dollar there will be no prison terms (NZ judiciary takes a very weak approach) - unless there are more severe charges i.e. GBH.
But it is a very serious offence nonetheless. The charge is considerably more severe than a common assault charge (which is in line with the kicking of patrons heads).
IMO, were talking about conduct that goes above and beyond 'turning up hungover to practice' or eve a DUI.
Thoughts?

Southland Sharka FB page has removed the ability for users to write posts and comment on their page.
The other issue is the Breakers player - boy that will affect him. And by how the Breakers treated Anthony, they don't take wrongdoing lightly.
Club had a right not to let them in - so already things dont look good

Benny A doesnt play for Southland. Wasnt involved.

they appear in court in new plymouth on wednesday. if you read the eye witness reports (only their side of the story reported) the attacks were pretty vicious. if true will have wider impact than just on the southland sharks.


the nz herald lists the alleged players ages..not hard to work out who was involved.

I reiterate this is alleged and i understand due process must be afforded/innocent until proven guilty.

