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...

Any video of it?

Surprised but not surprised. Jawai missed the ball by some margin

Jawai went to block Abercrombie and missed the ball but managed to whack TA pretty hard.

The fact that its been established he was going for the ball is what sets it apart from either Conklin incident, and makes the report laughable.

So you know 100% he was going for the ball? Didn't really look like it at the time

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.

First time Ive seen it, pretty poor attempt at a block shot. No one is annoyed he didn't check on Abercrombie, yet everyone got on Conlkin for walking away from Martin.... smh

Wont get any games for that, but again really pathetic effort at defending the drive.

Chalmers Boti said Conklin should have been charged for the first one.

He was charged

Refs doing their best to referee Jawai out of the game...now the NBL has jumped on the bandwagon with this pathetic report....c'mon!!

For a guy who blocks shots for a living missing the ball by about a metre isn't a good look for Nate

FYI I'm with you on that one. Was almost too clumsy for someone with his ability. Has to atleast be looked at but surely nothing comes of it. Jesus WA would have a shit fit if he missed a game!

"No one is annoyed he didn't check on Abercrombie, yet everyone got on Conlkin for walking away from Martin.... smh" Totally agree Kobe24!

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.

Id like to see how sincere he was with it... Conklin copped a huge amount of grief from Perth fans for his lack of sympathy. Just seems a bit weird, TC was down for a fair while and Jawai got nowhere near him. Dont care a heap just commenting on the potential double standard from the Perth posts from the previous Martin thread.

Just looked at it, I'm sorry but Jawai has to go. That was deliberate and hard. He needs to be suspended for that - he could have done some serious damage.

Cant see it happening, BUT guess the one difference compared to the Conklin ones, is that Jawai was facing Abercrombie and knew where his head was.

People have their heads ripped off every game do they - hyperbole much

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.

Oh ok so yeah Jawai showed Abercrombie all kinds of love afterwards haha

He didn't give a care in the world, was busy arguing with the ref about what I dont know, when Abercrombie could've been laying unconscious under the hoop. Such a double standard by the Perth fans who complained Conklin was an ice cold jerk who didn't care about Martins welfare.

Definitely dont see him getting games for this, but again was a really really pathetic attempt at defense by him.

Not dissimilar to Conklin in that you could argue they're reckless but not intending harm.

But if you call for Conklin to play with more awareness of the outcome of his actions, you could do likewise with Jawai. It was a pretty sloppy block attempt.

#hardball is going to look like a reckless hashtag before long.

Luuuc totally agree with your middle paragraph, its up to the league to make it black and white. And it is a truly important issue, last thing the league needs is a tragic occurrence because the big boys have no leash!

Awkwardly appropriate hashtag!

Just use your normal name instead of hiding behind anon posts charmers

The difference is that Jawai made an attempt at the ball and missed. Conklin made an attempt at contact with the player and connected. Jawai's was accidental but should have been called USF, Conklins was reckless and should have seen him suspended (the first one on Martin).

What? Which posts are you incorrectly attributing to me?

I think that particular swipe at the ball or head was pretty reckless, but all these plays currently in the limelight are nothing more than grey area plays i reckon. They will keep happening until the NBL makes it very clear on what can and cannot occur. Conklin wasnt facing either of the guys he hit, but Jawai was, so its all a bit dodgy.

I don't know what he is on about.

Ok, I can see how a massive swipe at the ball and missing is reckless. If you take a swipe and miss, that's on you. Fair point.

I consider Conklins to be worse/more reckless because he was all about making contact with his opponents and he got them both in the face.

Love how the NZ commentator says "thats like being hit with a leg of lamb" and that's how we roll when we go on a mob bashing, no baseball bats here just frozen legs of lamb.....

Poor Nate way to late

Im not hating just call it like I see it... Im saying Jawai will get off but that its a really clumsy attempt at defense 'lol'.

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

Kills me to defend a Wildcat, but this deserved an unsportsmanlike and that's about it. It was a bit reckless, but he was making a (late-ish) play at the ball. Abercrombie's gash on the arm when he hit the court is probably what's causing people to over-react.

Jawai may not have had any ill intent, but his intent shouldn't matter too much when head high contact is involved.

He was clearly *so* late on the attempt it was reckless, IMHO. You can get done in the AFL for a late spoil that connects with the head, so why not the NBL? NBL needs to protect the player with the ball driving to the basket. If Jawai had blocked the shot and made the same level of contact with the head it's obviously a different story, but that's not what happened here.

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

Pretty reckless and careless...

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.

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.

Why doesnt the NBL adopt a flagrant foul system with points and once you xceed you get games similar to the NBA's system.

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.

Not sure what koberulz point is. Abercrombie's fault because he moved the ball?
It should have been called unsportsmanlike at the time and that should have been the end of it.
Agree with BMF re flagrant foul system.

He's not saying its his fault, he is saying that the movement of the ball led to Jawai missing it completely.

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...

No, that is the same video. No one is denying it was a crude foul and that he hit him high. The difference between this and other incidents is that he was making a play for the ball, and missed. Conklin was making a play for the man both times, and connected.

To be honest, I don't think the AFL should be the benchmark for all tribunal findings as they get things horribly wrong every other week. They also have to consider the speed at which their game is played, which makes the risk of serious injury from head high contact more significant.

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

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

Why is it irrelevant? If the job of the tribunal is to find out if the play was intentional, reckless/negligent, or accidental, its entirely relevant. Its also going to be Jawai's defence, you'd assume.

You want all head high contact banned no matter the circumstance? I don't agree with that.

If you think that he wasn't making a play at the ball, thats fine. People are just showing why they think it was.

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...

FIBA rule 33.13: Illegal guarding from the rear

"Illegal guarding from the rear is personal contact with an opponent, by a defensive player, from behind. The fact that the defensive player is attempting to play the ball does not justify his contact with an opponent from the rear."

In this case, this rule suggests going for the ball will not be an acceptable defence.

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

Thats exactly my point! If the tribunal determines his actions were intentional, he could and should be looking at a long stint on the sidelines. If they consider it reckless, his penalty is going to be less.

"If it is not deemed intentional..."

So you're expecting the tribunal to make a determination on his intent, possibly finding it reckless (if not deemed intentional), but when someone points to some evidence that shows that there may not have been any deliberate intent, you want to dismiss it. I don't think you've thought that through.

You've used the AFL example as one which shows how a system works well. Don't they determine whether a play was intentional, negligent and/or reckless, and punish someone accordingly (along with the type and location of impact)?

PeterJohn, surely that is not relevant to reportable offences? He was called for a foul under that rule and no one is denying it was a foul.

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

I've never suggesting anything like that.

Yes, or no?

What a pointless question.

Facepalm...

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...

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.

Chalmers - the rule defines a principle - contact from behind is not acceptable. To get consistency in tribunal decisions, you need clear principles to apply.

I think embracing the principles embodied in the existing rules is a good way to go about it. If going for the ball is no excuse for hitting another player from behind and "Excessive, hard contact caused by a player in an effort to play the ball" is reason to award an unsportsmanlike foul (FIBA rule 37.1.1), then they sound like reasonable benchmarks for assessing recklessness and consequences, for mine.

The player knew he shouldn't be trying to block from behind but did it anyway and the contact ended up being excessively hard. First half is the reckless bit and second half is the consequence.

If the tribunal sees it that way and awards a penalty, it would set a clear precedent for assessing similar situations in the future. Players would know exactly where they stand.

It would also help we fans and journalists, who have no idea how the tribunal makes these decisions.

I'm not disagreeing with the rule or the principle. I just don't think grabbing a specific rule and applying it to another area (as similar as they are) is correct.

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.

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.

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

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 saw the extended clip, pretty ordinary display of care factor from Jawai. The point still stands how every Perth fan got so angry Conklin didn't make any effort to check on Martin, good ol fashion double standard. And yes I hate Perth, I loathe them, but every fan needs a team they hate so I guess I secretly love them. But my feelings on the team has nothing to do with it this observation. No way he gets suspended, purely because the Cats would have a case for the Conklin thing. NBL need to make this stuff black and white as mentioned.

Can we all stop looking at slo-mo and freeze frames to determine someone's guilt? If you can determine something in real time then how can you expect someone else to be making a split second decision to not do something?

*cant determine.

Found guilty of misconduct not guilty of striking. $1000 confirmed

Lachy Reid reporting it only came about after a complaint by NZ. That's a bit rich.

NBL press release said he was found guilty of striking.

Wildcats80, the Breakers have every right to make a complaint. Just like Gleeson demanded the Martin incident be reviewed.

I think it's another one in the long line of NBL incidents where a tribunal punishment is used to make up for the refs not making the right call. Should have been USF when it happened.

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.

I don't think he was trying to play the ball, I think he was trying to foul to stop the basket and got it very wrong. Agree a fine is OK but as long as it's consistent, which little seems to be over the years with this tribunal.

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.

For me, the facts that he was a long way from the ball, both north-south and east-west, and swinging hard. You could argue that just shows a very bad error in judgement, and that's possible, but I personally think he was trying to put Abercrombie to the free throw line.

Via the floor.

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.

I disagree, Abercrombie was elevating past him at speed so the only way to foul was via a horizontal arm movement.

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.

He took a massive slow swipe at the ball. If he wanted to put him on his arse he could have made more deliberate contact to his body, or come down on top of him with one or two arms. I think you're giving Jawai far too much credit for intentionally fouling but disguising it well enough so that a majority of people don't think it was deliberate, including the ref standing right in front of him.

I think he wanted to go over his head and get his arms. By swinging horizontally he had further reach towards the arms, his body wasn't heading in the direction Abercrombie was going so a vertical swipe would have been less likely to prevent a basket. That's what I think he was trying to do.

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.

"Just chop down on the arms."

You are watching a different incident. Jawai couldn't chop down on the arms because they were too far in front of him and going in a different direction to him.

As I said earlier, it's certainly possible he was trying to block the shot and just got his timing horribly wrong. I personally think he realised he was out of position, tried to foul and got that horribly wrong.