Isaac that is exactly what I thought.

None of the Perth players remonstrated like they did when Childress elbowed Wagstaff. So this leads me to believe the Perth players thought it was accidental contact.

I tend to think that the NBL has been rather weak on suspensions and fines for players and very slow too. Looking at historical suspensions as BOTI mentioned in his article it is very difficult to argue that Conklin should even be fined let alone suspended for this.

Personally I think the below would be appropriate:

Conklin - 1 match suspension for inadvertent contact to the head due to careless play plus a fine of a small amount.

Gleeson - 1 to 2 games suspension plus a medium fine for comments made after the game. These were premeditated and meant to cause a reaction from the opposition. Threatening violence can end you up in trouble with the police in any other workforce and likely instant dismissal. I think this is a lot more of an issue than anything that happens in the heat of the moment.

Of course going by NBL history unless the "New NBL" wants to make a stand as BOTI said Conklin should get nothing and Gleeson a warning and a fine. If anything happens tonight Gleeson will be in trouble especially if Jawai is involved!

I think the charge of striking provides an avenue for him to get off. Can he really be found guilty of striking? Striking to me would be a deliberate act.

Hard to take issue with anything Boti said.

An entirely reasonable take on the situation.

"Gleeson - 1 to 2 games suspension plus a medium fine for comments made after the game. Threatening violence "

Give me a break. His comments were unprofessional and deserving of a reprimand but he did not threaten violence.

This is the first thing i said, not one Wildcat cracked it. Even when they show Martin falling into his seat on the bench, look at Gleason. Just standing there looking blank... and usually all he does is complain. This will be dismissed for mine. And one of the reasons will be because of what Gleason said post match, a complete twat, the powers that be are human too, and they would be pissed at the unprofessionalism. Imagine a AFL coach saying such things, fine fine and more fines!

"This will be dismissed for mine. And one of the reasons will be because of what Gleason said post match,"

Pretty sure that isn't how tribunals work.

If you had a little argument with a colleague at work today in the heat of the moment and swore at them or whatever you would probably be fine. If an hour later you came out and said to everyone in the lunch room that your colleague better watch his back because on Monday your bigger mate is coming in to work with you and he isn't happy what do you think will happen?

I honestly think in sport "heat of the moment" stuff happens and you can be a bit more lenient on penalties. If you come back to it though then the book should be thrown at you as hard and as fast as possible.

Never said it is how tribunals work BUT human nature always plays a part. That was the point I was making there buddy. Anyways I think he will play, hope so too will be a cracker if he is in.

I'm personally more interested in seeing what happens to Gleeson, if anything.

The NBL had a test last year with the Childress incident- take proper action, or not. They failed miserably.

Now they have another test in responding to a coach's comments that were completely out of control and a horrible look for the league.

Slammin, he was asked if Nate was going to bring some extra physicality, and he said yes. Physicality is part of the game. Call it a threat if you like but he didn't say anything that wasn't already within the realms of a basketball game.

The Childress and U'u decisions last year certainly paint them into a corner, get harder and face a legal challenge on precedent.

I agree with SC, how can they possibly prove a striking charge? I would have thought a charge involving the word "reckless" would have been appropriate.

As for punishment, I think a significant suspended fine/suspension would have been appropriate for a "reckless" charge due to the difficulty in proving intent, but there as a future sentence in case something similar happened again.

There was an incident a few years ago that was "striking - with elbow" but it was actually with a forearm so it was basically dismissed on that.

Surely this new NBL has a clean slate though and have the opportunity to set their own precedence?

Same organisation as far as I know, so precedent from previous decisions would be a factor unless they had communicated otherwise to clubs prior to this incident.

Pretty sure someone is going to lose their head tonight. Can just see it happening.

The intrepid investigative reporter says that Conklin flailed his arms recklessly. Seems to me that if you do that (ie behave recklessly) then you need to be accountable for any consequences. (Bit like in AFL where if you choose to bump, you are responsible for the consequences regardless of intent) I'm sure the strike wasn't intentional but if it resulted from reckless behavior then he has to be penalised. The Childress and U'u incidents don't really set precedent in my view. They were both cheap shots but didn't result in any serious damage to the opposing player. In my view, behaving recklessly, and having someone end up with a broken jaw and 3 lost teeth as a far more serious offense than taking a cheap shot that causes no harm apart from tempers boiling over. My view is also that Conklin should face a lengthy suspension.

The reaction of the other players is irrelevant. Compared to the other two incidents, it happened in a flash and many would have been looking at the ball rather than Conklin. In the other two incidents, everyone on court would have seen them plainly.

Boti is the worst thing about Australian basketball, but this article was quite good.

Gleeson's comments were poor from a corporate comms point of view, and Dennis' weren't great either, but they were both great for the league.

The NBL needs stories, it needs publicity, and I don't think we should be punishing players or coaches from getting a bit feisty in the press conference.

The fact that Fox is running with the stories about the incident and the post-match comments show that they don't seem to mind either. Someone said yesterday the comments could have undone all the hard work that has gone in to the season so far. That could not have been more incorrect.

The comments Gleeson made have been blown way out of proportion. Mountain out of a mole hill if you ask me. Were they unprofessional? Probably. Do they warrant any action? No way. At most he should maybe got a dressing down from NBL and Wildcats management about what is and isn't appropriate to say.


Joey got a slap on the wrist for going beserk and throwing punches a couple of years ago, I'd be surprised if he got more than a talking to.

Lets just hope there's no violence tonight.

What if there is?

I mean, Shawn Dennis has his mind made up that Perth "has guys that throw a lot of elbows". That mindset is obviously proof that Conklin was acting on instruction from him.

We complain when coaches are boring and dull in press conferences, now we have two coaches giving there opinion, and we are saying they should think first. Big deal they were asked a question and they answered how they felt, good on them. I for one are tired of the scripted answers we get in press conferences from coaches in all leagues. Happy with both coaches responses, should be more of it, speaking how you feel, at the end of the day they are only words.

What if there is.... well that would be pretty pathetic and sad look for the game. Id love to know what Jawai was thinking when he heard Gleason say all that.

If you are already thinking that Jawai wouldn't be pleased, then doesn't it kind of make any suggestion of violence taking place after Gleeson's suggestion kind of redundant?

FMD, Yes lets turn yet another thread into a Gleeson bashing exercise...
Ok, Perf sukks, Conklin is an Angel, Martin was flopping, Gleeson should be banned for life and then shot.

Boti has lost the plot.
Why on earth would you base something on players reactions?
Does that mean that every time we object to call we get it overturned?
If the players have their backs turned whilst somebody breaks a chair over Conklin's head, does that make it ok because nobody saw?

Simple fact is you don't cause that kind of damage without substantial force. As a result, Conklin has a case to answer.
I don't think you can substantiate a case of deliberate intent, because there just isn't enough conclusive evidence. And it would make NO difference if the entire Cats team THOUGHT it was intentional.
There is however a case to answer for some level of recklessness. How the NBL view that remains to be seen

First reactions are often best reactions. Boti definitely has a point there. It doesn't mean there is no case to answer, but it pours cold water on some of the claims made of a "dirty" act, particularly by Gleeson and Hire.

I just hope the NBL tribunal has some intelligence and judges the act rather than the consequence.

Ok, Perf sukks, Conklin is an Angel, Martin was flopping, Gleeson should be banned for life and then shot.

Settle down and be rational.

"I'm sure Nate is getting ready to answer that (Martin incident), and we'll watch that as a team," he said.
When asked whether he will fire up Jawai for a dose of extra physicality against Townsville's bigs on Friday, Gleeson responded, "Without question."

The simple fact is, through those comments, Gleeson has insinuated there will be some sort of retaliation/revenge for what happened. At the very least, that's how it could be interpreted. The league cannot have coaches making comments like that because it could lead to acts of violence on the court.
If it does, the shame on everyone involved.
I don't think Gleeson should be "banned for life" but I sure as hell think the league needs to send a message that comments such as those won't be tolerated. A fine would suffice.

Conklin has a case to answer.

Did you read the whole piece? Boti agrees. I'm not sure how you reckon he's "lost the plot". I think the piece is actually pretty well balanced.

What do the reactions -- or lack thereof -- from Perth players have anything to do with the incident?

Players get fired up all the time over completely incidental contact, despite the absence of recklessness or intent to injure. The opposite can occur too if they didn't see exactly what happened.

This is a moot point.

"The simple fact is, through those comments, Gleeson has insinuated there will be some sort of retaliation/revenge for what happened. At the very least, that's how it could be interpreted. "

Yes that is correct. He let it be known that Conklin is in for a physical encounter.

"because it could lead to acts of violence on the court."

Now who is being irrational?

If you honestly think that's all Gleeson was saying by those comments, head meet sand.

If you honestly think that's all Gleeson was saying by those comments, head meet sand.

What I am saying is that the likelihood of any violent acts coming from it are a deliberate attempt to blow things out of proportion.

He was asked about extra physicality and he said yes. I don't know how you jump to the conclusion he is instructing his players to break jaws or whatever.

@Kobe24 Jawai was thinking why dont McDonalds deliver

I'm surprised Boti didn't mention the Larry Abney foul on Brad Hill 9 years ago, which resulted in a much worse injury to Hill (2 broken arm bones - one a compound fracture). Very ugly. On that occasion, the Abney foul wasn't even called a USF even though his intention was clearly to foul Hill, who was shaping to dunk on the break.

The league's official response on that occasion was to acknowledge the refs should have called it USF. Beyond that, no action. The point on which that decision turned was that he didn't mean to hurt Hill. Here's the relevant quote:

"However, Harmison said while it was clear that the foul involved excessive contact, the league office did not believe Abney acted with malicious intent.
'As a result it has been determined that there are no grounds for the laying of charges in this matter,' he said."

As a precedent, make of it what you will. It's worth noting the contrasts with the Conklin incident, where Conklin had possession and intent to foul is indeterminate, whereas Abney did not have the ball and had clear intent to foul.

I prefer to think both Conklin and Abney had no intent to injure. When tactical contact is an accepted part of the sport, occasionally it goes horribly wrong. NBL is that sort of sport and there is the low but real risk of this sort of incident every few years.

At least we don't see coaches head butting players any more.

@train I agree. Mountain out of mole hill. I don't understand why there's always so much hating on Gleeson on these threads. Is he just the guy that fans either like or hate? He's got one of the best coaching records, if not the best, in the NBL right now and yet there are very few comments ever hating on other coaches. I don't get it.

PeterJohn the Abney incident showed how incompetent the umpires and league were back then.

Another example was when Anstey deliberately elbowed Brett Maher in the face which from memory only got a normal foul. After the game Anstey admitted what he did by saying he was trying to get Brad Davidson instead. Only in the NBL can you deliberately elbow someone in the face and admit it and not get suspended

Another example from Anstey was in the 2009 grand final when he smashed into Carter but wasn't suspended for it. If the worst umpire in the entire NBL Aylen called the most obvious illegal screen (Yes he was that bad back then also) then that incident wouldn't have even happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0oT4Oc6ShU

I have to agree KingJames

I have to agree KingJames

I have to agree KingJames

I agree a lot, apparently

Sorry for the multiple posts.

Would there have been as much heat if it had happened to an Adelaide player and Joey came out and said it's gonna be on next game.

From my perspective, yes. It wasn't who said it, it was what was said from my point of view.