Lets change the rules mid season to allow this!

Hmm, Sydney play Adelaide this week. Its clear that Adelaide protested the attempted signings, putting their own self-interest ahead of that of the league.

How do you make the connection to this decision, and "Perth running the league"?

This anon would blame his butter spoiling on Marvin.

Uwe...I doubt Adelaide would have protested. They have seen first hand what Montreal offers at this level and wouldnt have been worried by his or Muo's inclusion.

I agree, but last week the blame was put on the club that the Kings were due to play so I figured the same excuse applied.

Hilarious - sounds like there might have been a bit of over reach by an esteemed, independent, hard-hitting, investigative basketball journalist last week. There is no linkage at all between the Harrington situation and the Montreal/Muo situation. One could draw that conclusion from the article but that would be your conclusion, not his.

You'd think if Sydney thought they had been dealt with so harshly, they might have something to say about it....

#244, thats fine but it still means that last weeks claim of a Perth protest due to the schedule was complete crap.

Lets also stop assuming that Sydney had a solid offer out to Harrington, plus all their paperwork in order, particularly that showing that signing Harrington was financially viable. Imagine flying him out here only to discover Sydney had no way of paying him, or couldn't commit to keeping his payment under the cap. That would be far more damaging than what has allegedly transpired.

The more I hear, the more it sounds like the NBL was being prudent in rejecting the Kings request.

Enter all the Perth fans with sarcastic comments about how its Perth's fault... Its just a shame smarter heads couldn't prevail. Im a die hard 36ers fan, and id much rather my team play something closer to full strength, good for the league, Sydney and the 36ers preparation for the finals.

"Enter all the Perth fans with sarcastic comments about how its Perth's fault.."

Um well when your club gets blamed for creating a situation, aren't we entitled to pull the piss when its shown not to be the case?

Kobe, there were a few sarcastic comments from fans of other teams last week when everyone assumed that Perth had protested. Bit sensitive to have a go now when clearly there was far more to it than claimed last week

I haven't seen anything yet that says Montreal/Muo were knocked back by the NBL. We are all leaping to that conclusion based on the article...and we all know now that we shouldn't be drawing our own conclusions from these articles.

It could be that Sydney took the decision to ride out the season without them, or couldn't agree on on terms or anything else.

250 - Because they had a key rebounder and defensive player out with an injury - Duh !!!

Anon 250's response is towards Anon 247's comments about depth, not about whether or not they broke the rules.

"probably already had "enough" depth even without Anthony's replacement."

Where was this depth you speak of?

Just gets old is all I'm saying. No one seems to stay to stay on topic. I would've liked to see what a healthy DQ could do, was a lot of fuss about him early on and I didn't see anything appealing. Perhaps was more injured than first reported.

If Marvin & the NBL had potentially given Perth an unfair advantage during any NBL decision making the Breakers Management & Lawyers would be all on it like a rash.
I don't believe there have been any conflicts of interest or favouritism of the Wildcats from Marvin & the NBL board although I have not been party to every meeting or decision. I do have confidence in the Breakers Management to throw bricks if & when needed if that ever did eventuate.
How about everyone cuts the guy some slack and give him a pat on the back for helping to keep "our" league afloat & exciting instead of throwing round recycled conspiracy theories.

Well said, Mystro.

DQ's ankle gave him some curry but he was coming in to form when the opportunity to take Motum came up. Any club would have done the same switch. DQ and Sixers parted on good terms. I would love to see DQ back at Sixers if there is ever any room and wish him well wherever he lands up. Top bloke.

Uwe,

the 36ers dont have the person in charge of the their team running the NBl though.

Perth fans , please never change.

Putting all the Perth crap aside, how is this conceivably not exceptional circumstances. IF it's true the NBL rejected it, they need to explain why. Because if this isn't exceptional circumstances, then exceptional circumstances simply don't exist.

Why would Marvin/Perth stop DQ and Muo playing for the Kings. Kings have 2 games against United and one against 36ers, it would be in their best interest to have the Kings beat either of those teams to help them secure their playoff spot. This whole conspiracy theory is just stupid.

" IF it's true the NBL rejected it..."

Like I said, what needs to be looked it is whether Sydney ticked all the boxes and had everything sorted at their end before anyone blames the league for rejecting anything.

As I understand the rules, Muo could not be re-signed by the Cats as a replacement for Ross (or even short-term for Knight).
But people think other rules should be bent to allow him to be signed with another club?

Snooch, I am assuming exceptional circumstances would be determined by whether or not they had a chance at playing in the Finals and whether or not those players could qualify for said Finals.

It would be just as embarrassing for the league to allow the player transactions, Sydney go on a tear and make the Finals but subsequently cant suit these players as they didnt qualify.

Sydney cant make it anyway and it is in the NBL's best interest to have the best teams playing in the Finals - that could potentially be jeopardised should Sydney be allowed to suit such players?

Would have been interesting to see the route the NBL would have taken had Sydney only had non finals bound teams left to play - decision might have been different?

Gee, if the rule says a minimum amount of games must be played, then that rule applies to all teams.

End of story !

As I understand the rules, Muo could not be re-signed by the Cats as a replacement for Ross (or even short-term for Knight).
But people think other rules should be bent to allow him to be signed with another club?

@ Tornado. But if the players were able to qualify for the finals then it would be moot because they would come under the rule as it stands, wouldn't they?

I don't see the point of having a rule, but also having an exceptional circumstances out-clause, especially if you're not going to allow it when you have an actual example of exceptional circumstances.

The rule is crap as it stands - surely a team should be able to replace legitimately injured players.

I'm a kings fan but if the Kings bolstering their roster with players who have not played for them means the teams in the playoffs mix may miss out or have their spots change then I can understand where the league is coming from.

I hope they scrap the rule this off-season and Perth uses it with six games to go next season (after Knight gets injured, of course) to bring in Andre Blatche, they clinch HCA, Knight returns for the playoffs, then people start complaining about how the Cats get everything because of Marvin and how there needs to be some rule to prevent this sort of thing happening.

Just a shame I think the NBL could've really used the media coverage AT WORST, of having Al Harrington in the league. Perth fans are gonna go on and on... but the general consensus is would've been great to bed the rule for the sake of the leagues growth. And yes as a 36er fan, I understand this wouldve meant playing a Kings team with Al Harrington. But the growth of the league is bigger than the stake of one finals run.

Now Perth fans, go back to whinging, just don't wonder why you guys are always baited, you throw your emotions into every thread now days.

Prefix: I agree that the points about the Kings lacking depth is their own managements fault...

however...

People talking about "rules are rules" and "end of story" bollocks are missing the point of "exceptional circumstances". It's not about making playoffs, it's about the Kings being able to be competitive for their fans and sponsors at the very least.

It was ONE game outside the limit.

The Kings lost the leading MVP candidate (20+ppg, 9.8rpg, 4apg? and 2.1bpg).

Not being able to replace him rips a monumental hole in their team, whether they are to make the playoffs or not.

Not being able to replace Childress with ANYONE, let alone a like for like replacement, cripples the Kings to the point that it gives teams battling for playoff spots an unfair advantage. Development players aside, it's ultimately 10 on 8.

If those aren't enough points for fracking "exceptional circumstances" I don't know what the hell is.

Kobe, Perth fans are only "whinging" because it was implied that their club was the one who protested this signing/other signings, which has since proven to be complete crap.

If that was said just to bait people, its a pretty stupid thing for someone to do, especially if that someone supposedly cares about the sport and the league.

Its constant. Your team is generally really good, they have been 28 years, the are the team many love to hate the most. Get over the political correctness and don't let your backs get raised with every post. Its getting old. But me whinging about you guys probs doesn't make me any better so I'm done.

Anyways agree with Wookie, smarter more business minded heads could've prevail here and made an otherwise woeful Kings team now, very interesting to watch.

As far as I know Muo could have been the replacement for Ross because it was a season-ending injury.

BTW. Why do we have another topic for the one already in place?

No, "exceptional circumstances" means exceptional CIRCUMSTANCES, not "exceptional player."
A player getting injured is the very definition of NOT exceptional.
That Childress may have been on track for MVP is completely irrelevant.

By all means we can debate the merits of the rule, and how it might be amended for the FUTURE. But the rule is what it is and shouldn't be changed 80% of the way through the season.

People think its ok because Sydney can't make the finals, but what happens next time when its a team in contention for the finals?
Melbourne are most probably out of it by now, but imagine if they were a game or two closer, with two games coming against Sydney.

It really beggars belief that people want to bitch about the Oceania Ruling (something that was only a clarification of what was thought to be policy, and which was decided early in the off season) and blame "Nick Marvin's Conflict of Interest" (even though Wesley was signed two months before Ross.)
Yet here, in the final weeks of the season, they advocate overturning what is a clearly written and well understood rule.

How is having two of your starters, who you now can't replace, not "exceptional circumstances" to a rule which says you can't replace a player 75% of the way through your season??? I would have thought that's the VERY definition of exceptional circumstances.

So what would be considered "exceptional circumstances" and why even have an "exceptional circumstances" out-clause then? It makes no sense. Either have the rule or don't.

"How is having two of your starters, who you now can't replace, not "exceptional circumstances" to a rule which says you can't replace a player 75% of the way through your season??? I would have thought that's the VERY definition of exceptional circumstances."

No, as I said, players getting injured is the "VERY definition of NOT exceptional circumstances."
2 players getting injured? Annoying but hardly exceptional.

As to what WOULD be exceptional? Losing your entire team to a bout of Dengue Fever would probably qualify.

Rules are rules and you can't go changing them near the end of the season because a player or players are out injured. This isn't professional wrestling where rule changes mid-way through a match are sometimes written into the script.

Adelaide lost BJ and brought in DJ before the cut-off. In that respect, we got lucky. One game later and Adelaide would have had to make do with what we had. Sydney weren't so lucky in that they lost players after the cut-off point.

Would it be good if Sydney could bring in injury replacements until the end of the season? Yeah probably, but the rules state they can't.

I doubt Perth protested any potential Sydney replacements last week and the same this week with Adelaide. In reality it had nothing to do with them.

Should the rules be changed before the start of the 2015-16 season? Maybe, but that's not for me to decide.

And for the record, I agree with Dazz that injuries are not exceptional circumstances.....not unless the whole damn team goes down.

Exceptional Circumstances doesn't have to mean grossly ridiculous like what was I hope suggested in jest, as there is still no reasonable alternative given to this given by those who don't agree. Easy enough to say that it's not good enough, but to not put your own case forward just makes your suggestions seem even more foolish.

Exceptional circumstances are in place to alleviate or mitigate unforeseen or unconventional hardships. For the reasons I've already stated, for this to occur just one single game outside the limit, I think it suits the bill perfectly.

Happy to entertain any reasonable discussion that doesn't just contain "I don't think so, so it isn't..."

Hats off to Holden V8 for making the most sense. MVP of this thread

What's "one game" got to do with anything? You can't just move the goalposts every time you are "just one game" over the limit.

Wookiee, do you believe that the Kings has everything in place (paperwork and a legitimate offer etc) in the few days between Childress confirming his injury, and the NBL supposedly rejecting it?

"Should the rules be changed before the start of the 2015-16 season? Maybe, but that's not for me to decide."

The disappointing thing for me is this has happened before and the rules should have been changed by now. I have heard no good reason why a team shouldn't be able to replace an injured import.

Injures can be exceptional circumstances and with the move out to the badlands next season the Kings need every bit of help to sustain the public and more importantly sponsor interest both now and for next season.
The DQ censure is simply crazy.

The rule is there for a reason and I think it is fair.

Snooch, if the players could qaulify for Finals then you're right - the point would be mute but the fact remains that they cant.

Sydney had an opportunity and plenty of time to replace Brandt. They opted for Horvath which turned out to be a bad decision and a waste of time. I'd be questioning their management after that decision as they are the ones who have really hindered the team - they should have done more homework there. They could only be one player down instead of two.

Kobe24, you say it would have been for the betterment of the league, but would it? Short term gain doesnt always translate to long term gain. I think the league has more to lose from such a signing as it does to gain? You have to look at it from a business point of view rather than a fan/excitement point of view.

What's "one game" got to do with anything? You can't just move the goalposts every time you are "just one game" over the limit.

Wookiee, do you believe that the Kings has everything in place (paperwork and a legitimate offer etc) in the few days between Childress confirming his injury, and the NBL supposedly rejecting it?

The disappointing thing for me is this has happened before and the rules should have been changed by now. I have heard no good reason why a team shouldn't be able to replace an injured import.

Sydney had an opportunity and plenty of time to replace Brandt. They opted for Horvath which turned out to be a bad decision and a waste of time. I'd be questioning their management after that decision as they are the ones who have really hindered the team - they should have done more homework there. They could only be one player down instead of two.

Short term gain doesnt always translate to long term gain. I think the league has more to lose from such a signing as it does to gain? You have to look at it from a business point of view rather than a fan/excitement point of view.

Wookiee, the point about "just one game" being a terrible argument is because as soon as you shift the goalposts (in this case, a player can play with 6 games to go) you then create another situation which another player wants to come in with five games to go, which is now "just one game" outside what is allowable under the rules and decisions of the NBL CEO.

They need to draw the line somewhere and they did. 25% and less. Just because this incident may have been as close as possible to the limit, it doesn't mean it should be a determining factor in adjudicating exceptional circumstances.

And I'm not going to bother with your pantomime, except to say that you have put forward an extraordinarily naive point of view of what is required. Here is just one example why;

17.1. A NBL Club must not offer a contract to any player unless it has the prior approval of NBL
under this Rule 17.

So why was DQ ruled ineligible?

I have no idea but I'm going to guess that if they didn't have a legitimate offer for Harrington in time, and they hadn't even contacted Muo by the time the supposed Perth protest came around, that something isn't quite right in the Kings front office to be able to mitigate these "extraordinary circumstances"

Front office got DQ to train with the Kings, so no reason what so ever to think they weren't on the ball. Eligible, games played, paper work available and he was expected to be cleared to play tonight. However.....
The Childress thing is far more complicated obviously and understandable (not really).
NO excuses about DQ's eligibility. I am very disappointed that we haven't heard the Kings explanations of what transpired publicly.

From all the negative comments here it seems clear that all the Perth/Sixer etc fans care about is having their team be successful today not the wider good of the NBL and Australian basketball. Obviously this is a good thing up to a point, but I then guess you won't mind when you have no Kings team to beat in future seasons. Try to look at it from a commercial viewpoint of the Kings fans and sponsors and corporates. Why would they bother turning up to the rest of the games this season to see the Kings get smashed. The SSC has already lead to the demise of two NBL teams, I hope with the move next season the Kings aren't the third.

That is complete crap. I haven't looked in to who is supporting who amongst these comments. Regardless of who you support, I think some people are happy to bend the rules for the bigger picture, others are happy to respect the process because of what may happen if they continually allow this to happen.

"The rule is there for a reason and I think it is fair."

Why should a player have to play enough games to qualify for playoffs to be eligible to play in the NBL?

As a hypothetical, if the NBA season started later and Patty Mills could only play five games at the start of the season does that mean he shouldn't be allowed to sign?

This is from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald about tonight's game. Nothing Earth shattering, but no mention of Sydney trying to appeal the decision, which you would have thought would have been mentioned here.

"The Kings had been considering several candidates to replace Childress for the remaining games, including former 36er Daequon Montreal, Perth Wildcats player Mathiang Muo and even Childress' ex-Atlanta teammate Al Harrington, but league rules prohibited them from signing someone so late in the season"

Incorrect assumption that Sixers fans would not want to play against Sydney with inclusions, especially DQ.

DQ was released only as the availability of Motum came up and any team would have taken him over DQ. DQ left on good terms and was starting to hit his strides and the talk around the fan base is that they would love to see him back in next season at the Sixers, if not in another team. There was talk before DJ came up that they may bring back DQ.

Joey is not that shallow. He helps bring in players he feels have talent and they may take a while but he often gets it right. Look at Teys and players he has brought in over the years.

Perth perhaps may be a different story, but please don't tar the Sixers with the same brush. They would likely prefer to have DQ in to challenge them as they make a run for the playoffs. No slacking off allowed or expected..

Lets not confuse the replacement of a former NBA player with an import (DQ) who is already here, already on the books and good to go.
No one seems to have any answers to that (stupid) decision. DQ has the games up his sleeve and as AFAIK was a welcome addition to the Kings roster.
Paperwork once again should have been cleared for tonight's game. The NBL continue to taint their short record being in charge with crazy decisions.

"From all the negative comments here it seems clear that all the Perth/Sixer etc fans care about is having their team be successful today not the wider good of the NBL and Australian basketball."

What codswallop.
As a Cats fan, why would I care about knobbling Sydney? Following your logic, since our last game against them was last week I should now be in favour of helping them???

"Lets not confuse the replacement of a former NBA player with an import (DQ) who is already here, already on the books and good to go.
No one seems to have any answers to that (stupid) decision."

And yet more codswallop.
The rule is simple, clear-cut, and EVERY team is well aware of it.
What "stupid decision" are you talking about? The NBL's "decision" to not violate a clear and well-established rule?

"It's got to do with the exceptional circumstances and the ability of the head of the NBL to be able to weigh up the pros and cons of the Kings being able to replace Childress, that it was SO CLOSE to the deadline, that there were still enough games left to have both a positive effect on the league and a unfairly negative effect on the Kings."

And yet more...
Exactly what part of this simple rule can't you understand?
WHY do people keep making arguments based on the worth of Childress, the obvious negative effect it has on Sydney, how good DQ or Harrington would be, and sundry other IRRELEVANT issues???

"The disappointing thing for me is this has happened before and the rules should have been changed by now. I have heard no good reason why a team shouldn't be able to replace an injured import. "

Perhaps, (although I think they need to be careful.)
Point is the rule is clear, simple, and well-established. It's not the sort of thing that you throw out on a whim.
I agree the rule could be improved, and hopefully this incident will provide the impetus for a thorough review in the off-season.

So Dazz you seem to be the expert here on the rules, why was DQ ineligible? Pretty simple question that I have seen no one answer.

Again Dazz, do not include the Sixers. Again, they were all good for DQ joining the Kings. Stop making assumptions.

Interesting. Harrington was asked on Twitter if the NBL rejected his plan to play here. His response was "that's not true." So does this mean that Childress bullshitted with his original comment about timing, and a certained moustachioed "journalist" ran with it with doing any fact checking?

NO one has answered about DQ being ineligible yet.
That story I know is true.

No one knows the answer. Why ask us? If you know the story to be true, ask whoever told you that to find out more.

In the meantime, you tell us what the real story is with Harrington, as you were so keen to claim the NBL stuffed that one up too.

"So Dazz you seem to be the expert here on the rules, why was DQ ineligible?"
Haha, Expert? Not me.

What is the question with DQ?
Maybe I've got this wrong, but my understanding was simply that Childress played up until the 25th, ie game 22. Hence the Kings had played more than 75% and could not sign any more players?
If I have that wrong, then I apologise.

As I've said, I think the rule is too harsh and needs to be reviewed. My only point is that it needs to be done in the off-season.

"Again Dazz, do not include the Sixers. Again, they were all good for DQ joining the Kings. Stop making assumptions."

Yeah sorry, just having a dig.

I always thought that an injury replacement was part of what you are suggesting but because DQ had already played he would have been eligible to play for finals and still available to replace an injured import. Perhaps I misunderstood?
Why would the Kings fly him to train with them if he already ineligible. So much mis information and the only one who may know and generally tells no one is the NBL.
A rule clarification from the NBL re Childress and DQ would take no time and clear all doubt. Yet another NBL fail.

That's the NBLs job surely. Either way the fans are interested. I fail to understand why the NBL haven't explained it. Simple.
If its adverse to the Kings so be it so long as its legitimate and not something that some expert here says is true.
The NBLPA rules that I have read mention no such rule that the NBL seem to be using.

Well yes, I can't disagree with that.
A Clear statement from SOMEBODY saying "this is why" would stop a lot of the angst.

I have based my view on a simplistic understanding of the rule. If there are more complexities to it, then it would be nice to have the NBL explain why they couldn't sign him.
If the rule is clear-cut, then fine, but it does make one worry. All "barbs" aside, I would hate to think that Sydney had a legitimate case (WITHIN the rules) and the NBL knocked it back.

The rule really does need to be reviewed.
Whilst there need to be safeguards in place, the goal should be to allow a team to "replace like with like."
As it happens the effect on results is negligible, but imagine if Melbourne was still in contention, and say vying for a spot with the Crocs or NZ. Suddenly they get two easy wins against a depleted Sydney...

"Nobody, why does the league have to make a statement about something that never happened? "

They don't HAVE to.
However, the league should be keeping tabs on social media and therefore know that this has sparked some controversy.
A statement clearly setting out the facts would do a lot to clear the air.

Pretty simple really. I know DQ was precluded from playing by the NBL.

Sorry for the post under OC. I don't know how to change it to nobody.

a real chance of finishing last in the competition.

Kevin White is now out of this weekends double header against Melbourne Divided.

No Childress, No Madgen, No White....probably still beat Melbourne

Melbourne Divided. Love it.
But yeah, if Melbourne don't go 2-0 this weekend, there's something seriously wrong.

At least there won't be pressure of them performing in front of a tv audience ;-)