Hoops

Jawai reported after incident in NZ game

I feel like I'm watching a completely different incident to paul. There are much easier ways to foul and make it very unlikely for the layup to go in than to do what Jawai did. Just chop down on the arms.
There's no question whatsoever in my mind that he was going for the block.
I'm fine with it being argued that he misjudged or that his attempt was reckless, but questioning what he was trying to do just zero basis from what I can see there and from my experience playing.

That makes no sense. A horizontal swipe like that risks going clean over his head and doing nothing. If I were in Jawai's position and trying to foul, I'd be coming across trying to pin Abercrombie's left elbow to his left hip. That way I'm coming down and across and am a much higher chance of actually collecting him.

If he was trying to foul, I'd expect a more vertical arm movement. As it was he barely touched Abercrombie at all, so if it was an attempt to foul it was a poor one.

He gets as far from the ball as he does because Abercrombie adjusts to Jawai's initial ballward movement.

What evidence is there that he was trying to foul? His hand goes right through where Abercrombie was originally going to bring the ball up. It's not like he doesn't normally make giant swiping motions when blocking shots, either.

Honestly, I'm okay with a fine, if they're going to crack down on head-high contact. I'm not really okay with it being considered 'striking' or the tribunal finding there was no legitimate attempt to play the ball, though.

one game....simple as that.
i know the cats seem to think its ok to play thug, but lets get this straight, the slo-mo in pause shows nate's hand almost touching the right hand of TA. look at the ball and arms apart.
clearly another moment of thug from the cats.
**if someone is destroying them, hey why not hard foul them**

(I'm responding to PeterJohn, Chalmers posted while I was typing)

The very next rule says "Holding is illegal personal contact with an opponent that interferes with his freedom of movement. This contact (holding) can occur with any part of the body."


Therefore, clearly all instances of holding should be suspensions. Obviously. Because apparently the answer to 'should it be a foul?' and 'should the player be suspended' are EXACTLY THE SAME.

You're reading the section on fouls, you idiot.

ALL that says is that if someone makes contact from behind, it's a foul whether or not they're going for the ball, which is absolutely nothing to do with tribunals or suspensions or anything else going on in this thread.

This feels like it has already been done to death, but there is no decision to be made mid-way through a swing like that. You don't just take a swipe at the ball and then within one tv frame of missing it, decide to make an adjustment and complete the swing of your hefty and fast-moving arm in a completely different direction. Come on, man.
If you want to argue that it was a reckless play then I don't think you're going to get too much argument, but this thing of breaking things down into nanoseconds and disobeying laws of physics is a bit much.

Fine, I will rephrase it then, just for you guys.

Have a look at the image presented in anon's post #908.

You may agree it appears Jawai is making a play at the ball, in that split second of time to some people it may look like he is.

Now have a think about a player's ability and the choice that player has to make in a split second of time.

It is quite realistic to presume Jawai is going to make a play on the ball in the first instance, then realises he isn't quite going to get there and in any case his arm is in a swinging motion so he has a choice to make (maybe he has already done so)!

Now, what happens next is determined by his actions, no one else.

He either lifts his arm slightly and avoids contact with the head of his opponent, or he carelessly swings downwards and risks serious injury to him. The impact and severity of this action is all on him.

The action and the result of the action speaks for itself, no need to ask Jawai what his intent is, what else do you think he is going to say...

Therefore his intent is irrelevant, his action is always going to be determined as reckless. It may not be proven intentional, it may not even be proven accidental, however I believe I have proven it to be reckless according to the facts.

Cheers...

Facepalm...

Yes, or no?

So, Chalmers, you would be happy for someone to commit 5 fouls like that in a game would you?

The intent of the player determines whether the act may be considered intentional or not.

If it is not deemed intentional then it is likely to fall into one of two categories (or perhaps both), that is the act is deemed reckless or accidental.

The indisputable facts must then be considered along with the risk and code of conduct that protects the health and well being of the players and the future reputation of the game.

Let us list the basic facts in this incident:

1. A player with the ball is exposed and going to the basket to make a legitimate scoring attempt.

2. A defending opposition player is out of position, behind the player with the ball and moves towards that player.

3. The defending player swings his arm from behind and connects with the offensive player’s head with significant force, knocking him to the floor.

4. The offensive player has been placed at risk of injury and has in fact suffered some type of trauma to the head; I believe this isn’t within the rules at all and it is the force of the swing that makes it reckless and unreasonable, not accidental in this case.

So, these facts I consider as indisputable, whatever you would like to bring to the table or whatever is said about the player’s intent is disputable and also irrelevant because in the case of the act and results of the actions presented a decision can be made based on recklessness.

What remains is whether or not the presiding organisation (NBL in this case) wants to stamp out this type of incident, or condone it.

You see, their whole season has been labelled ‘HARDBALL’ so they have already painted themselves into a corner to some extent and I for one have never liked it, since they initiated this concept for promotion it seems they are less likely to prevent these actions.

Just my opinion, based on some facts…

Actually, I will go a step further and suggest it is also irrelevant.

You're saying he made a play at the ball, that is in fact inconclusive...

I must be watching the wrong video, yes the ball moves just like it always does, yet people don't get smacked in the side of their head every time someone tries to get a block!

Protect the shooter...

Give him a warning and move on. Could have been very serious but luckily it wasn't.
He made a play at the ball but ended up with a ton of head while the player was well in the air making him extremely vulnerable. If Abercrombie had landed differently his season may have been over.

You can see on the sideline angle that Abercrombie brings the ball up in one spot, and then moves it while in mid-air. Jawai's hand swipes through pretty much exactly where the ball would have been if Abercrombie hadn't moved it.

The above AFL claims are simply wrong.
There's a pretty comparison with this and AFL actually, because genuine spoil attempts that collect head are either let go, are a free kick, or at very worst are a 50m penalty if they are deemed "making him earn it". Only if they are blatantly late, like Lewis on Goldstein, do they end up with suspensions. And that is not when it is a genuine footy play gone wrong/misjudged, that's when it is move that is clearly outside the rules.

No broken jaw... No case to answer for !!

I am baffled at the debate to be honest. Even in the AFL, probably the NRL (both very tough games), both Jawai and Conklin would be reported and suspended.

But the NBL and it appears some of us, somehow can't see that these types of reckless acts need to be stamped out.

We can't condone players swinging elbows or arms or fists at other player's heads, period!

It matters not one little bit whether anyone thinks it is deliberate, malicious or accidental, it has occurred for a reason and the result is an injury, serious injury or risk of serious injury.

That is a reckless act and there is no further correspondence necessary, just a penalty to clean up the game...

#STUPIDBALL

Personally I don't feel like that is suspension-worthy.
No intent to do anything but swat the ball. I've done the same thing in a game, though mine was more a glancing blow to the head, but not an ounce of ill-intent on my part, so I sympathise with Nate on this one.

One thing that all these head-high incidents should do is prompt the league to clarify their stance on this, and perhaps introduce a new category of penalty for acts like this that are accidental, but careless in nature and injury-causing.

I would whistle this particular one as an unsportsmanlike foul for excessive contact and leave it at that, but I can see why other people want more.

I cut it to keep the clip short, but Nate did go over to Abercrombie just after he got back to his feet and gave him a tap.

Looked like a legit attempt to me at the time. From memory one angle made it look pretty bad, but the other didn't. I'll post up a clip.

That's definitely one of the words to come to mind...

Can see Jawai being found guilty and Conklin not, though. Given how the tribunal seems to function...