Don't have too much of an issue with Jawai's. $1k fine and now he will at least realise to be more careful with his arms/elbows.

Conklin is hard done by as it looked purely accidental. Can't help but feel the Tribunal felt compelled to suspend him because of the outcry following the Martin incident - they felt the pressure of public opinion if they let him off this charge (even know I think he should have got off)

You're saying that Jawai had more intent to make contact with his opponent that Conklin??

Thought this was a bit ridicolous:

"Factors such as Abercrombie being able to continue the playing in the game.."

There were other better reasons why Jawai didn't warrant a suspension..thought this was probably the most stupid reason of the lot and yet the NBL have ran with it. Level of harm to player shouldn't be a primary factor.

By that reasoning you could probably just about kill Vukona and you'd get off scot-free because Vukona will continue to play through everything.

Supernintendo, honestly, yes. Just my opinion though. Each to their own. That wasn't the base of my argument.

Oh look, the NBL tribunal is a joke. How shocking.

Fair enough MACDUB. Agree to disagree and all that.

This is a joke. Either charge Conklin the first time or not all.

Tey's and U'u's were worst than both Jawai and Conklin.

Conklin was charged both times, Callisto.

Conklin injured both players both times.

Teys,etc should just be issued a formal warning compared to conk and jawai!

Both Jawai and Conk are looking to intimidate opposition players the difference to me is that Jawai is looking to slap Abercrombie's lay up all the way back to Perth (maybe he could try to just knock the ball out of the keyway instead).

Conklin is only looking to make contact with the opposition players, whether just for the foul or not, his intent is to make heavy physical contact with his opponent.

Jawai is going for the ball, but neither of the players that Conklin has now made miss games has even had the ball.

Don't mind the punishments handed out to both players. This really needed to be brought in after the Damo incident but I guess this is the NBLs way of acknowledging the old system didn't work and to send a message. Players need to be protected. Intentional or not, hits to the head need to be treated seriously.

As expected, but i think both should've gotten off with a financial fine and move on. NO WAY Conklin misses games if not for the Perth incident and social media stuff to do with that. Dont think his half time interview helped either somehow. Crazy Conklin is actually the one fouled in both incidents, there is no rough stuff from opposition players towards him either time, no tech fouls unsportsmanlike etc

Jawai was never going to miss a game, $1000 is peanuts, cute really. Wonder what will happen if he commits a similar act later on in the season.

You're saying that Jawai had more intent to make contact with his opponent that Conklin??

Always hard to gauge guilt or innocence and consider intent or inadvertent/recklessness and then determine what punishment fits the crime but the overall response as a message of deterrence was neccessary in both cases.

The injury or lack of injury is not the issue. That Abercrombie still has an attached head was good fortune. Jawai's reckless foul in his line of sight across Abercrombie's clearly visible head and the high probability of his intent to commit a hard foul to deter Abercrombie without regard for an unsafe and dangerous outcome for Abercrombie warrants its own measure of deterrence.

So trib say not a legitimate attempted at a spoil..Okay that means it was deliberate then! $1000 is a joke,that's just one nights take away bill for Nate.

Happy with the result, it at least serves as a deterrent for other players in the future.

"Abercrombie said on Saturday he had not seen the blow coming in the game, but after viewing it on replay afterwards he was less than happy about the nature of it.

"I didn't see him, I just saw Jarrod [Kenny] in front of me, and next thing I knew I was on the ground ... it was a decent blow from a pretty big guy, and it didn't really look like he was going for the ball. It was bit of a dirty play, I think."

Abercrombie was shaken up quite badly at the time and had to receive stitches in his elbow at halftime as the result of a cut caused by the fall. He had 15 points at the break, and after finishing with 20 for the game wasn't sure whether the blow contributed to his falloff in scoring.

"I wasn't quite as aggressive in the second half, and who knows if that had something to do with it, or it was just the way the game flowed," he said."

Maybe Tom should play in the NZWNBL from now on.

"Maybe Tom should play in the NZWNBL from now on."

Stupid comment, he is one of the best SF's in the comp.
Abercrombie shouldn't have to worry about overweight Gorilla's trying to take his head off mid air be cause they were too slow to play legal defense.

Dick comment Chalmers... your better than that. Unlike Martin and Creek who both said it was part of the game, as the guy who hit them didn't have them in his visual sight. Abercrombie wasnt happy and said so, because the guy who hit him knew where his head was.

No comment!

"Stupid comment, he is one of the best SF's in the comp.
Abercrombie shouldn't have to worry about overweight Gorilla's trying to take his head off mid air be cause they were too slow to play legal defense."

No he shouldn't but to call it a dirty play is bullshit.

What has his status of being a good player got to do with anything?

"Dick comment Chalmers... your better than that. Unlike Martin and Creek who both said it was part of the game, as the guy who hit them didn't have them in his visual sight. "

They could have also said that they players need to be more careful swinging elbows around because of actual injuries that occurred, but they didn't.

You don't try and drop someone in the shit because you played poorly in the second half.

"You don't try and drop someone in the shit because you played poorly in the second half."

I think you need to watch the second half again.

I think you need to read his comments again.

* Posts comment based around knowing what a player was thinking
* In same sentence mocks someone else for reading minds

^Luuuc gets it.

"No he shouldn't but to call it a dirty play is bullshit.

What has his status of being a good player got to do with anything?"

Head shots aren't legal in Basketball so by default it's a dirty play.
It was also on a guy who happened to be scoring at will on Perth up until that incident so read into that what you will.
His (Tom Abercrombie) status as good player has nothing to with anything except that Jawai's play almost robbed the league of one of their most athletic and exciting players because he couldn't make a play at the ball legally so instead clobbered someone in the air.

"Head shots aren't legal in Basketball so by default it's a dirty play. "

Fouling and standing in the key for three seconds aren't legal either. Try again.

Dirty plays are about intent, not where you get hit.

so then Conklin is clean and good to go?
Who cares that Martins Jaw got broke and Creek got dropped as there was no intent?

mystro, I don't think anyone is saying that intentional damage is the only type we'd rather not see. I still don't think Conklin meant to break Damo's jaw, but going from that to "who cares" is a bit of a leap don't you think? Everyone cares when players get hurt.

Sorry I didn't know the Kiwis thought they could redefine the meaning of words when it suited.

Apparently Martin didn't mind his jaw got broken, and Creek didn't mind that he is missing a game. But Abercrombie dropped Jawai in the shit because he played a poor second half, obviously not considering that Perth is only half a game ahead of the Breakers on the ladder....so read in to that what you will.

Abercrombie just gave his opinion on it. What's wrong with that?

It's nothing different to what Creek and Martin did. They called it as they saw it.

"mystro, I don't think anyone is saying that intentional damage is the only type we'd rather not see. I still don't think Conklin meant to break Damo's jaw, but going from that to "who cares" is a bit of a leap don't you think? Everyone cares when players get hurt."

absolutely agree with you, I was replying sarcastically to Chalmers comment of:

"Dirty plays are about intent, not where you get hit."

Well FWIW I agree with him about that. That's exactly what makes dirty plays dirty.
Intent of the act and severity of the damage both need to be considered, but they're not the same thing and are not always linked.

"Apparently Martin didn't mind his jaw got broken, and Creek didn't mind that he is missing a game. But Abercrombie dropped Jawai in the shit because he played a poor second half, obviously not considering that Perth is only half a game ahead of the Breakers on the ladder....so read in to that what you will."

Abercrombie didn't drop Jawai in the shit, Jawai smacking Abercrombie in the head while in the air did.

Do you honestly think Abercrombie spent that night on his computer emailing the NBL his unhappiness with the play?

Would it have been better for the Breakers organization to make a public statement that Jawai better expect retribution next time they play rather than go through the correct channels with the league?

I've posted the comments he made and compared them to whatever Martin and Creek said about Conklin. I find it weird that the one that resulted in the least injury and was the only one that was a play on the ball was considered dirty. A "no comment" would have been better.

If the Breakers are dirty at anyone it should be the refs for not calling the USF and having the matter dealt with adequately on the night.

"I find it weird that the one that resulted in the least injury and was the only one that was a play on the ball was considered dirty."

It was also the only one where the guy was looking at the bloke he hit.

I don't think it was dirty, I personally wouldn't do what Tom has done, but I'd much prefer he be honest and generate some interest than lie for the sake of decorum.

Creek, Martin and Abercrombie all appear to have been honest in their assessments so I have no issue, even though I think the first two got it right and Tom has gone a little too far - clumsy, agricultural, even lazy, but not dirty.

Last time Abercrombie was fouled in the air hard (Peter Crawfords block attempt) he spent the next 2years recovering so do you blame him for not being that impressed at almost having his head taken off by a guy the size of Nate Jawai anon?

Jawai might as well give up now and go back to Europe.
Refs and now the NBL have made it clear they don't want him here.
Rumours were he was signed on a massive Marquee deal, maybe that's what has pissed them off?

Logically there is just no sense to any of this.
Jawai goes for the ball and clips him in the head. That is deemed reckless.
Conklin throws his arms around (because he's a dick) and hits Martin so hard he breaks his jaw into two, and that's ok.
Then Conklin does the same thing a week later, and suddenly the NBL are scrambling to get the Egg of their faces.

Now, I have no problem with finding Nate "Reckless." I would have said "careless," but we're splitting hairs. Nobody disputes he was going for the ball, but he missed and clipped his head on the follow-through. So yeah, reckless/careless.
But if that's reckless, then you need to invent a whole new category of stupid for Conklin's behaviour. One game suspension is a joke.