Umm, not according to the article you linked.

He's been charged, and only with unduly rough play, not striking.

Don't know if he's plead guilty yet, or opted to face the tribunal.

Not sure of which part " suspended for one game" says he isn't guilty

AD point to where I used the word striking

In reviewing the Illawarra vs Adelaide game last Sunday, Illawarra's David Andersen was charged with unduly rough play as a result of an incident with Adelaide’s Nathan Sobey during the third quarter.


The contact was judged to be intentional, high and low impact. Andersen has been suspended for one game down to a $1,000 fine if he accepts an early guilty plea.

Andersen has until Friday to accept an early plea or face the tribunal. Nathan Sobey was found to have no case to answer

KB3, the bit where he could still face the tribunal and be found not-guilty perhaps?

The NBL itself has found him guilty and suspended him for one game

@Isaac he has been charged and found guilty by the NBL , please change the thread title back to its correct state. Andersen does have appeal rights to fight the guilty verdict. Yes the NBL doesn't allow for natural justice but that is the system.

Notwithstanding the exchange between the respondents, it is actually a strange situation.

Based on what has been reported [elsewhere], Andersen has been given a penalty of one game suspension [which implies he has been found guilty] that can be reduced to a fine if he 'pleads guilty' [which implies he might not be].

Seems to sound like the only way is up [i.e., a stiffer penalty] if he goes down the tribunal path, but maybe that is exactly what the 'powers that be' want him [and us] to think to avoid a tribunal exercise that would lead to more scrutiny of the system.

Based on what I saw on TV at the time [feet off the floor, dual forearms to the neck or head] I'd suggest he would probably be unwise to test the system.

Interesting that they'd offer an early guilty plea if he was already guilty. Perhaps it could be a late guilty plea?

The system is designed to stop appeals and save time and cost to the NBL

If Andersen appeals he risks getting a bigger suspension

If , as most do, he takes the fine everyone moves on

As I said, he has been charged and found guilty and worst case is suspended for a game unless he appeals.

Hawks respond:

The Hawks are extremely disappointed in this determination by the NBL Game Review Panel and firmly believe that it was correctly dealt with by the referees during the game. The incident has not come under any further scrutiny from the referee's in the review of the game. It is the club opinion that no further action is required.

The Club will now seek legal advice to assess the formal charge and the NBL’s process in the hope of resolving this matter.

Does anyone know why he had Sobey in that head lock as they ran down the court earlier? He had a few cracks at Sobey in that game.

The system is designed to stop appeals and save time and cost to the NBL

If Andersen appeals he risks getting a bigger suspension

If , as most do, he takes the fine everyone moves on

As I said, he has been charged and found guilty and worst case is suspended for a game unless he appeals.

so what is true then ?

That he's been charged. As everyone else is telling you.

Looks like Boti Nagy needs a refresher on logic too:

Subsequently, the NBL finds Andersen guilty of intentional high contact and unduly rough play, copping a one-game suspension which comes down to a $1,000 fine.

Sobey is found to have no case to answer. So that means his technical foul also was wrong.

OK

for the slow ones

If he has been charged and not found guilty he wouldn't have a one game suspension or fine attached to his name

If he isn't guilty why has he been suspended for one game to come down to a fine if he doesn't challenge it?

He hasn't been suspended or fined.

Andersen has been suspended however he can have his suspension reduced to a $1,000 fine if he pleads guilty.

It's not rocket science.
He has been charged with unduly rough play (not hitting/striking) and the penalty assessed is a one game suspension.

He has a choice.
He can please guilty, and cop a reduced penalty of a fine, OR he can front the tribunal.
The tribunal would then find him guilty or not guilty.

Chances are he will cop the guilty plea, to avoid the risk of a suspension, but its still his choice.

Andersen has been suspended

I really enjoy how Kobe fails to read basic English

The NBL have said "Andersen has been suspended...."

You take shots at people without being fact based

You don't seem to understand what has happened here

He doesn't need to plead guilty the NBL has deemed him guilty and suspended him

It’s his choice what he does from here

They also say Bryce Cotton is averaging 7ppg.

Deflection away from being incorrect , cool

The NBL statement is incorrect.

You are hilarious. Of course it's the NBL that’s wrong not you.

The NBL's statement conflicts with both the published tribunal procedure and itself.

$1000 is a big decision for the Hawks, that may remove new warmup tops from their shoestring budget next season!

When I saw this thread last night I couldn't wait for koberulz to get in here.

He didn't disappoint.

So I think the consensus of posters is that the NBL Game Review Panel is playing the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the tribunal is playing the role of the courts.

I hate to add to the excruciating level of pedantry, but no - it's closer to the NBL being the police issuing a ticket for a summary offence (say, a red light camera ticket) and the tribunal is the Magistrates/Lower Court where you can challenge the decision, but if you lose you also have to pay Court fees.

Andersen has paid the fine to avoid suspension.

We should keep a database of fines/suspensions and what brought them about. Swear we've had bigger hits receive punier penalties?

This one looked like a fairly significant hit to me. Just a few centimetres from a broken jaw, I'd suggest from the TV vision.