I wasnt expecting that either. Does seem a bit harsh

But, it signals a further move in pro sports towards protecting the head at all costs.

Another trend is considering the impact more than the intent or the legality of the actual play. This can lead to consequences for the offender that sometimes seem out of kilter with the action.

Wagstaff did turn the shoulder slightly and could see his shoulder was heading towards Barker's head. That, combined with Barker's concussion, would be what sealed Wagstaff's fate

By that logic, every single player to have ever played in a game is guilty of unduly rough play in every single second of every single game.

Nobody should be allowed to play this round, all players should be suspended.

Absolute joke.

Remarkable decision. Two game suspension for a normal basketball play. If they are going to make this the precedent these types of screens need to be made illegal in the normal rules. It must be called an illegal screen to discourage it. I dont think it should be, but you can't suspend someone for a legal play and not adjust the rules.

"Wagstaff did turn the shoulder slightly and could see his shoulder was heading towards Barker's head."

If he didn't move out of his cylinder, he is permitted to do that. If it's not against the rules, hard to support a suspension for it.

Tough decision, but maybe all wagstaff flopping is catching up with him, lol.

NBL stoops to a new level of stupidity... I am lost for words, how this has gotten to a suspension is just beyond a joke.

Well done NBL, on ball screens at the top of 3 will be next?

I remember Childress getting 1 game suspension for his high deliberate elbow on Wagstaff a few years ago and most people thought that wasn't hard enough punishment.

I fully expect Cats to challenge this with about 500 pieces of video evidence.

Is Humphries going to be suspended for the hit on Travers?

[By that logic, every single player to have ever played in a game is guilty of unduly rough play in every single second of every single game.]

Does every play result in a concussion caused by someone rolling their shoulder into an oncoming player's head?

News to me

And yes for consistency and clarity, given the suspension they should confirm that movement within the cylinder once the feet are set, is a foul

Although thinking more, It was a foul anyway. Just cos your feet are set doesn't mean you can cause significant contact by body movement

The cylinder principle isn't absolute

Flippity floppity karma.

Does every play result in a concussion caused by someone rolling their shoulder into an oncoming player's head?

And yes for consistency and clarity, given the suspension they should confirm that movement within the cylinder once the feet are set, is a foul

LV, he didnt cause significant contact, the offensive player did. Wagstaff was simply standing there. Yes he twists the body, however is in his right to do so given he is in his cylinder, doesnt lean left or right (or forwards) and keeps his feet planted.

If Barker got up and kept playing, nobody would be second guessing it, gotta let things like this go.

Sure, if Wags stepped into it then sure suspend him for a season if you must.

Pains me to say it but yeah, feels like Wagstaff hard done by here.

I didn't realise contact with a players head was a normal basketball play, but there you go. Given all we know about concussions and their long term effects, is it not best to stamp out blindside screens?

I'm ok with a discussion to eliminate blind side screens, but it's not the rule currently and also feels like a hard thing to judge 90% of the time

There are already time and space requirements, you can't give the defence free rein to just run around the court backwards and expect the offensive players to dive out of their way.

Unfair on Jesse Wagstaff. That is just a good basketball play. Just unlucky that someone got hurt.

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

Thanks Luuuc

The screen looked 95% legal to me, there was a slight twisting movement (but I am not well versed on the rules here).

Is the suspension because of :

a) Barker got concussed?

b) The twisting movement?

c) Its Jesse Wagstaff?

A long time ago Robert Sibley cleaned up Trevor Torrance and the overwhelming response was to blame TT's 4 team mates for not warning him.

Does this not apply here?

If an illegal screen had been called at the time would we have even ended up here?

It wasn't an illegal screen.

Best screens are blindside screens. In the half court if you manage to surprise a defender it has a greater percentage to get a good shot or a mismatch on the switch. Just because someone runs into a stationary screener with time to gather speed resulting in greater force doesn't mean it should be illegal. If a player raises an elbow or dips their shoulder to deliberately cause contact to the head, then throw the book at them.
Ffs, soon it'll turn into netball with refs constantly yelling "contact" and either stopping play or play to "advantage". And won't be able to attempt a block unless you're a metre away from the shooter.
Really can't see how they can police the matter. If someone gets flattened by a screen and their teammate didn't call it out in time, they're the biggest culprit.

Clearly the league is saying it is. Like everything you don't have to agree. Doesn’t change the fact the league has declared it illegal

I still reckon it's about the optics. The NBL needs to be seen to be protecting heads (or at least it wants to be seen to), even though it was a legal screen and Barker’s fault that contact occurred. If Barker’s shoulder had connected, this would never have gone to the tribunal.

This is reminiscent of the debates following the Paddy Ryder-Will Day incident this year

Ryder didn't do too much wrong. He was just slightly late.

But his alleged lack of duty of care resulting in high impact contact, and Day's concussion, were factors leading to Ryder's 2 match suspension

Like it or not, this is the way sport is "heading" (pardon the pun)

And the bump is a normal football play, just like a screen is in bball

But the Ryder incident and others like it are causing a rethink in what's an acceptable bump in footy

Over time we may see similar rethinking of the screen in basketball if there any more concussions

And on a side note, interesting that Delly (in his previous NBA stint) and Ili also had major concussion problems in past couple years. I haven't heard of many concussions in bball but that's 3 of United's recent point guards

So they should ensure that the rules reflect the intention to protect the head.

The current dependence on interpretation by refs, or overriding the refs by the tribunal, is ridiculous.

Fair point

The reality is that Wagstaff did slightly turn his left shoulder towards the approaching player and lowered it a tad. The unfortunate part was the difference in size of the players which led to contact to the head.

If the player had not been affected the way he was by the contact, it is highly likely that nothing further would have happened. As a number of other posters have said, it is the league's awareness of the longterm effects of concussion in oter sports that is likely to have led to the citing of Wagstaff.

At the same time if Wagstaff had not rotated and dropped his shoulder then it is likely that te effects of the contact would not have been as serious.

Very hard one to call either way.

Go back to Damien Martin getting teeth knocked out by Conklin and nothing was penalised. Cant help feel there is a continual anti-Perth bias at NBL head office , the John Brown decision last year another example where an obvious war was not deemed as exceptional circumstances.

Hope the cats take this one all the way to the court of arbitration if need be.

Dddd it was when Humphrey's sent Travers off bleeding!!

If the nbl wants to decide that level of shoulder roll is undue rough play and a 2 match suspension they are making a rod for their own backs. If I was Hutchy I'd drop a boat load of cash (probs a fiver for him) and have every screen from every game with even the slightest movement reported and demand an investigation for undue rough play.

You can cry optics all you like but you simply can not suspend based on outcome, it's a slippery slope. Also based on this rule how many weeks should hodgson have got for almost causing Bryce to lose a leg? Conklin for losing half Martin's teeth? Childress for trying to end wagstaff? We could go on.

All very good points.

I could accept decisions like this if they'd put out a statement to all teams before the season, so that everyone knew where they stood.

Looks much worse when they’re making inconsistent decisions on the fly based on the outcome rather than the intent - it turns any screen into a lucky dip as far as how the decision will go. And it gives a clear advantage to shorter players.

I’m not condoning head contact in any way - we need to protect heads more than any other part of the body - but the NBL needs to make it clear and unambiguous how the rules will be enforced, and then enforce it consistently. Hell, why not even follow the NBA’s flagrant 1 foul idea.

Worst bit is Jordy Hunter set an identical screen the same round and not a peep from the NBL. Not saying I want Jordy cited, I don't, but it's either rough play or it's not.

It's a sad day when the NBL has stooped to the lows of the AFL, who run an atrocious match review/tribunal system. Why would you try to emulate that?

Question, if this is the decision. does that mean any player that runs into a screen leading with their head could draw the league into a suspension or at least a foul on the screener? It would fundamentally change the game and repeat the cycle from AFL (although they have concussion issues) were overzealous decision makers cause a big problem where there is not really one...

Since when does basketball have a concussion problem that needs fixing anyway? This is purely reactionary to contact sports like AFL, NFL etc.

The NBL are inserting themselves into a group to which they don't belong. Total overreaction.

Perth fans aren't even trying to hide their blatant parochial bias.
Wagstaff *clearly* turned his shoulder toward the defender which caused direct contact to his head, on a blind screen no less.

Nothing to object really.

Yep Shane Heal, Lauren Jackson, Peter Hooley. All massive bias parochial Perth fans... ffs

Mark Bradtke as well.

It was a lazy screen from Wagstaff, get over it Wildcat fans.

Since when does basketball have a concussion problem that needs fixing anyway? This is purely reactionary to contact sports like AFL, NFL etc.

The NBL are inserting themselves into a group to which they don't belong. Total overreaction.

Since when does basketball have a concussion problem that needs fixing anyway?

It does exist in basketball but it is nowhere near as prevalent compared to tackle sports where some of their governing bodies have gone 'full retard' with the best example World Rugby and how it has resulted in entire matches being ruined.

Yet by going off of how the NBL decision was made they seem super keen to join in on the party as well.

He has the right to turn once he has established himself. He doesn't have the right to lift his arms (which I didn’t think he did). You can take a charge and turn to take the hit. I think Perth should fight it and armed with nearly every other screen of the round

He is allowed to turn within his cylinder to protect himself. Wagstaff turned into the contact to make contact. He wasn't protecting himself.

From the FIBA 10/2022 Rule book

"Illegal screening is when the player who is screening an opponent:
• Was moving when contact occurred.
• Did not give sufficient distance in setting a screen outside the field of vision of a
stationary opponent when contact occurred.
• Did not respect the elements of time and distance of an opponent in motion when
contact occurred."

further

"A player who is legally screened is responsible for any contact with the player who has set the screen."

It's an illegal screen per the rules. The narrative of being allowed to brace yourself isnt in the rules. Wagstaff will be penalised accordingly.

Why not Humphries in the same game ? If wearing a red singlet means your guilty but a Melbourne or Sydney one and your not - how is that a just system ?

- Sebastian
He is allowed to turn within his cylinder to protect himself. Wagstaff turned into the contact to make contact. He wasn't protecting himself. -

Exactly. ^
The purpose turning of the shoulder was clearly to make & exacerbate contact, and the timing and drop of the shoulder demonstrated obvious intent to do so - hence the 'unduly' charge.

Watch the amount of screens where he gets cannoned into and you'll understand why Wagstaff braces for contact. The one where Tucker simply ran through him with no call in the 4th is ridiculous.

If that's a suspension , bradtke , Rees , Vlahov , wheeler , Davis to name a few would have had life bans for all the legal screens they did , not there fault there 1-2 feet taller and the player hasn’t the basketball smarts or his 4 team mates didn’t warn him

Joke of a decision , if your going to make a fundamental change on how a legal play is officiated after the fact let the teams and the public know , all the refs at the time called it a legal screen , at worst a blocking foul . Joke of a decision

I bet the league is using this to show they are serious about headhits but he will get off if he appeals.

Gazee there is only one ref on that play in the backcourt smh

"Gazee there is only one ref on that play in the backcourt smh"

Because an out of position referee has never made a call before in the NBL ;)

Cool, lets get the lead referee under the basket at the Wildcats bench end to make the call. Brilliant! You might as well join the facebook chat, "none of the 3 refs made a call so it must be legal". Because like your comment, no referee has ever missed a call either! ;)

Think you are missing the point to what I am saying, it was more a dig at the officials of the NBL who constantly call things when out of position while the referee closest keeps his whistle in his pocket :)

That doesn't mean the closet pocket whistle is correct :)

The purpose turning of the shoulder was clearly to make & exacerbate contact,

- The purpose turning of the shoulder was clearly to make & exacerbate contact,
~
Stop embarrassing yourself.-

So he turns and lowers the shoulder just prior to the defender running into him, and it's not deliberate - yeah, sure.

A screen by definition is a fully stationary stance. The part of his body that moved was the part that made contact with the defenders head.

If he remains fully stationary, not problem, but every angle shows he didn't.

He is obviously used to watching you do it KR

So he turns and lowers the shoulder just prior to the defender running into him, and it's not deliberate - yeah, sure.

A screen by definition is a fully stationary stance.

Brace for contact by definition, means to prepare, ie, stiffen ones body - what wagstaff did was a deliberate turn of the shoulder and hip at the precise moment to cause an intensification of impact as every camera angle shows.
Far from instinctive, it was cleary calculated.

Kobe I posted the rule above

Mat B is correct you cant move when setting a screen. You must be stationary. By your take you can have your feet set and clothesline someone and you would argue its ok if they weren't out of their cylinder.

There is no such thing as a cylinder when setting an illegal screen.

No doubt that Wagstaff knew exactly what he was doing, he has done it countless times. This time there are repercussions.

You're both wrong.

The league are telling you it's illegal. Your opinion as always means nothing KR.

I'll believe the video and the rule book over some random match review panel.

Wagstaff sits unless he appeals and wins. Believe that.

"The verdict will be upheld unless it gets overturned."

Genius insight, dude.

Kobe is correct, stationary means within the cylinder. Whether he stays within the cylinder or comes slightly out requires pausing the tape, that's how close it it. I believe he comes slightly out if you look at the line of his feet.

That highlights that this isn't unduly rough play, it's no different from many, many other screens set in every game. It is unfortunate the NBL has fallen into the AFL trap of judging the outcome, not the action.

Cylinder or not, he intentionally turned his shoulder and hip to compound the impact - hence the unduly ruling.

Just like in your cylinder is legal. I can still elbow someone in the head inside my cylinder

I can still elbow someone in the head inside my cylinder

"Stationary" means "remaining within his cylinder", it doesn't mean "not moving in any way at all whatsoever".

The parenthetical is a clarification of the word preceding it, not an addendum.

To me it reads like they want to make clear that the player needs to be stationary AND inside their cylinder, as opposed to being stationary but for example having their feet too far apart, or having their arm extended horizontally to clothesline a defender.
And IMO the Illegal section backs up that interpretation by mentioning moving.

Personally I thought Wagstaff was hard done by, as his movement was pretty minimal and within his cylinder. I thought precedence and common sense would see his escape penalty. But to the letter of the rule I read his screen to be illegal.

Kobe is just here to antagonise.

The rule is clear and written in plain English yet he can't accept it.

Was Wagstaff stationary? No , therefore its an illegal screen.

It clearly clarifies stationary as being within the cylinder! Under the definition of stationary meaning statuesque it would be an illegal screen if his arms were moving above his head but contact was made to his body, which is ridiculous.

In this instance, I do believe it was an illegal screen, because he came just past the line of his front his toes, ie out of his cylinder.

There are multiple possible interpretations.

Does it mean....

"Legal screening is when the player who is screening...

- Was stationary (*and* inside his/her cylinder)"

OR does it mean...

"Legal screening is when the player who is screening...

- Was stationary (*which means* inside his/her cylinder)"

No clarification exists in the following section where it describes illegal screening.

It simply says, if you're moving then the screen is illegal.

Therefore, giving due to the overall context the former interpretation makes the most sense.

Given Wagstaff was clearly moving, this makes it an illegal screen if my interpretation is correct.

Further, in the earlier sections of the rules 33.1 and 33.2 on the cylinder and verticality principles, there's nothing suggesting those principles are absolute. Swinging your shoulder into an incoming player seems out of line with the overall intention of the rules.

And then there's the other question, raised above- was he outside his cylinder anyway. Which would make it an illegal screen regardless.

You don't have to be statuesque. You not in illegal position if your fingers are moving. Watch how many screens where the hips moves but stay inside the cylinder.

The cylinder is the definition of a legal position in basketball, everything revolves around the cylinder.

The way the NBL is working doesn't make sense.

Humphries did the same thing and moved directly into Norton and wasnt feet planted like Wagstaff. But because Norton didnt get injured nothing is penalised.

Its like two cars speeding down the highway and Car 1 crashes into someone who wasnt paying attention crossing an intersection. Car 2 was also speeding but police let that driver off with no penalty. Laws have to be applied equally rather than outcome based.

Yes the penalty for Car 1 would likely be worse , but car 2 wouldn't get away without a fine.

This is the problem I have, you have to apply the rules consistently and not based on optics and results. Humphries should by the same rule at least be getting a fine.

But the anti-cats mob seem to ignore the double standard.

The rule seems to be trying to be concise but, as we've seen in the discussions above, it’s still a bit ambiguous. It doesn’t say what part(S) of your body have to be stationary. For example, if you’re bringing your arms up across your chest to protect yourself but your feet and trunk don’t move then is that considered stationary?

As for the definition of cylinder, from memory it starts at your backside and extends round your hips to around half a meter in front of your chest. Does this then make all those screens by big guys sticking their butts or hips out at the top of the key legal?


The rules can’t cover every scenario, which is why I think it’s critical at the start of every season for the NBL to tell coaches AND MEDIA what their interpretations will be, so that there’s little uncertainty and so that we don’t get the TV commentators questioning calls because they don’t know the details behind them.

I have scanned this thread and am surprised that nobody has commented on the United player's foolishness in executing a blind turn at high speed.
Doesn't he have a responsibility to look where he is going? He is not entitled to every spot on the floor and so shouldn't assume his path is clear.
I believe he contributed far more heavily to the outcome than Wagstaff did.

It's very tiring talking to people who don’t know the rules nor the principles. Cylinder principle is discussed in article 33 and visually defined in diagram 6.

Although I'm in the camp of 'no illegal screen, no suspension' I don't find the "Was stationary (inside his/her cylinder)" wording clear. It implies that being inside your cylinder is considered being stationary, which isn't mentioned in article 33.1. It could also imply that both are required, but there would be no need for parenthesis if that was the case. I agree with others that the intent is no movement outside your cylinder (definitely not consistently called that way in the NBL), but I think they FIBA could tighten up the phrasing her to make it clearer.

The rules also have to be read with the interpretations document.

Perth has appealed.

This decision makes us a "cupcake" league.

http://www.botinagy.com/blog/rd3-nbl23-wagstaff-suspension-dulls-world-class-league-boast/

Most of the prominent basketball experts have called this decision a farce. Having the owner of the NBL also still owning the Melbourne United does also show a conflict of interest here.

There's principle at stake, but probably should have just given the 36 year old the week off.

If this is a change in policy, should be flagged ahead of the season, in bright lights.

Overturned.

There goes the "it was clearly illegal because he was suspended" argument.

So what angle are those who say it was illegal gonna go with? you gonna hit us with the "Its Perf so they get away with everything" angle or something more original?

That wasn't the assertion. The assertion was it was illegal because he was cited. But a brilliant man like you knew that. As always you’re just being a twat. Simples.

He was cited in error, or it wouldn't have been overturned, you dolt.

The suspension was overturned for unduly rough play. No inference to whether is was a foul or not. But again you know this Mr Shit stirrer

The fact he was cited... but again you know this

cited in error.

In error for unduly rough play. My goodness smh

Had it been an illegal screen he would have been suspended and you know this.

That is factually incorrect. He wasn't charged with performing an illegal screen. He was charged with unduly rough play. 2 completely different things. But hey the closest ref kept his whistle in his pocket hey lol

He didn't do the thing he was charged with doing, therefore the citation is meaningless.

So Sebastian thinks it was an illegal screen that didnt warrant suspension... is this correct?

If correct - you are hereby saying every screen set in the NBL is an illegal screen... correct?

KR is saying exactly that. He was cited for unduly rough play which he didn't commit. It in no way says it was a legal screen because he got off. Please try and keep up. However, I know it’s difficult for you.

You can try and insult me all you want, im a bit too old for that though.

Again, you think it was an illegal screen right? if so, are you agreeing that all screens are illegal? because by viewing the reply it looks no different than all the other screens set in the NBL... actually most have more movement than that

If you have any clue just because one screen is missed doesn't mean every screen is illegal does it. The assertion, argument, what ever you want to call it is mute due to the tribunal finding. The tribunal funding was around was he guilty of unduly rough play! Which he never was guilty of. Again, please keep up with the conversation.

Look at those goalposts go!

Not at all. My claim has never changed. I have never said he was guilty of unduly rough play. So I'm sorry to call you out there.

Common's prevailed

NBL are so embarrassed that they haven't even posted or reported anything about the outcome even though it was over 3 hours ago

As much as I loathe the grub Wagstaff this was a complete waste of time.

NBL are so embarrassed that they haven't even posted or reported anything about the outcome even though it was over 3 hours ago

Hmm ok, crickets on their Facebook and Instagram though

NBL's Gottliebson suggested the incident should have been an unsportsmanlike foul due to the severity of the contact?

Furthermore, the screen was illegal because it was set too close to the player.

Is that correct?

Looked like an illegal screen to me turning the shoulder, but it didn't look blatant enough for this to be anything more than a foul.

LV isn’t wrong, clearly there’s a huge focus on impact over intent these days when it comes to concussion.

The NBL went too hard at it this time around, and it was the right thing to overturn it, that wasn’t ban worthy and it wouldn’t surprise if that kind of screen happens frankly, quite a lot and isn’t called as this one wasn’t.

Called this when he was charged. They want to be seen to be protecting players heads so they suspend him for a concussed player incident. Appeal and then single member panel reviews and goes against the NBL, washing the NBLs hands of responsibility. NBL statement says they respect the decision of the third party.

Nbl should put a united or kings player, team, organisation and fan base through this unnecessary distraction next time they want to be seen making a point then...