MELBOURNE (Paulo Kennedy’s View from Downunder) - It was a tough few days for common sense, consistency and the best interests of the league at the NBL Tribunal this week.

It was pleasing last Friday to write about how well the NBL had handled a week of genuine controversy. Unfortunately this week things went awry, although it must be pointed out the tribunal is independent from NBL HQ.

Let’s start with what happened last week, with Brian Conklin charged for striking Damian Martin following this incident:



Conklin’s striking charge was dismissed, with this paragraph part of the explanation:

"The Tribunal Chairman Tony Nolan QC found that while there was heavy contact made by Brian Conklin with his elbow to the head of Perth Wildcats player Damian Martin, on the balance of probabilities he was not satisfied that the contact was intentional, reckless or negligent."

Personally, looking at the footage I find it too difficult to reach a definitive conclusion.

Some people – including Martin himself - felt it was purely accidental, which is certainly possible. Very few felt it was deliberate, but some opined that Conklin had braced for contact at the very last moment with his arm raised, and that is also possible.

However, the tribunal gave Conklin the benefit of the considerable doubt, and few reasonable folk could argue with that. He had just been fouled and put off balance some 0.4 of a second before making contact with Martin.

Fast forward a bit over a week and Conklin was charged for striking Adelaide’s Mitch Creek after this incident:

Conklin was found guilty of striking and suspended for three weeks, with two of those held over unless he is found guilty of another physical charge this season. This paragraph was part of the explanation:

“Tribunal Chairman Tony Nolan QC noted that reckless behaviour is unacceptable and warranted a suspension with the player’s previous good behaviour taken into account when coming to a decision on a penalty.”

Ok, am I the only person left scratching their head here? Tony Nolan QC finds the first incident was not reckless but issues a suspension for the second incident because it was reckless?

The NBL Tribunal released very little detail on why the incident was considered reckless, but the laws of physics certainly cast doubt on that being the case. Watch the video again and note three important things:

1. As Conklin elevates into his shot there is significant contact with Anthony Petrie, significant enough to send Petrie backwards approximately two metres across the baseline
2. That contact to the right hip and upper leg forces Conklin’s entire body to rotate considerably to the left while in mid-air
3. Conklin’s left arm rotates with his body and makes contact with Creek in direct alignment with his torso while it is still rotating in the air

How anyone assessing the physics of what occurred could come to a definitive conclusion this was reckless is beyond me. There was approximately 0.2 of a second between Conklin’s contact with Petrie and Creek.

Is the NBL Tribunal suggesting NBL players have an obligation to tuck their arms in while rotating in mid-air some 0.2 seconds after contact?

Of course, whether this decision was correct or not, the biggest issue is the chasm between the two decisions.

One charge was dismissed while the other deemed worthy of one of the longest suspensions in recent NBL memory.

Given clubs weren’t informed of a change in NBL policy on such incidents during the week, I think the important question is whether Tony Nolan’s position as NBL Tribunal Chair is tenable?

To me, the judgements of the NBL Tribunal have lacked consistency and credibility for some time, and a fresh start is needed.

To achieve that, those involved should be moved aside, especially where their performance has not been of the consistent standard required.

The league needs to let clubs know exactly what the league deems punishable offences, putting aside unworthy precedents.

One area for the NBL to clarify is dangerous open-court fouls, and sadly, with the focus on Conklin and Nathan Jawai’s incident, they missed the chance to do so this week.

Brendan Teys’ takedown of New Zealand international Dion Prewster on a dunk attempt on the final play of the Adelaide v Sydney game was dangerous, unnecessary and something that should be stamped out.

Unfortunately, the NBL has a history of such incidents going unpunished by the tribunal, dating back to Larry Abney’s crude foul which resulted in Brad Hill breaking his arm and being sidelined for a significant period:



Then there was Peter Crawford’s unfortunate foul which resulted in Tom Abercrombie missing the entire NZ NBL season and the 2012 FIBA Olympic Qualifying Tournament:



And last season this ugly tackle from behind from Drake U’u on Cairns Taipans import Torrey Craig in the playoffs:



Teys’ rise from obscurity to a starter in the 2014 NBL Grand Final was one of the great stories of recent times, and having interviewed him twice it’s clear to me he is a genuinely nice person.

However, brain fade or not, these acts should not be allowed. All they do is put players’ health at risk and rob fans of the highlight plays they pay to see.

Had Teys’ foul gone wrong and Prewster injured his knee or ankle badly, he may have missed next year’s FIBA Olympic Qualifying Tournament and the chance to go to Rio.

Every time one of these incidents happens without the NBL taking action, the more they become condoned. Perhaps that’s why Teys did what he did?

The NBL’s tribunal process came up short this week, on the basis of consistency, transparency and in protecting the safety of the league’s athletes.

It’s time for a review that makes it clear what the league stands for and what will happen to those who breach those standards before similar situations arise again.

Paulo Kennedy

FIBA

FIBA's columnists write on a wide range of topics relating to basketball that are of interest to them. The opinions they express are their own and in no way reflect those of FIBA.

FIBA takes no responsibility and gives no guarantees, warranties or representations, implied or otherwise, for the content or accuracy of the content and opinion expressed in the above article.to Rio.