Every week, ESPN's Olgun Uluc runs through what's catching his eye across the NBL, and takes you inside the conversations trickling around the Australian basketball ecosystem.
The NBL's game review process needs an overhaul
It's finally over.
It took nine whole days for the NBL to complete its process of investigating and offering sanctions for the incidents that occurred during the Adelaide 36ers' November 17 game against Melbourne United. There were requests of 'please explains', a Game Review Panel, a Single Member Tribunal, and that tribunal being adjourned for two days because one party requested it, all with the media not being permitted to observe any part of the process.
"It's the most ridiculous process I've come across in professional sports," one NBL General Manager told ESPN.
The process is antiquated and inefficient, prolonged for no good reason.
Here's how it works. When an incident happens, the offending party has 48 hours to put in a "please explain". Only then does the NBL determine whether they'll charge. Once a charge is in, the offending party is offered another 24 hours to appeal. In this instance, it sent to a single-member tribunal; we all then have to hope that one of the people designated to run a tribunal is available imminently. That tribunal was scheduled for Friday, then adjourned to Monday, when we finally had charges handed out. Of course, the 36ers were given another 24 hours to appeal the charges.
They didn't and thank heavens for that. If they did, the NBL would then have to convene a Full Member Tribunal, which definitely would've dragged this out to around two weeks since the incident.
For some comparison, in the NBA, Fred Van Vleet had an incident with officials on Monday afternoon (AEDT), and a $50,000 fine was issued to him by Tuesday morning. There was no opportunity to appeal, so that situation is done and dusted in less than 24 hours. Having a process without the ability to appeal is still probably a while away in the NBL, and would need ABPA backing, but the point stands; it took less than a day to complete the investigation and hand out a sanction.
In the AFL, a Match Review Officer (MRO) assesses all reports and referrals following each match. The MRO, in conjunction with the Executive General Manager of Football, would determine whether the player is to be charged, then inform that player's team of the charge and sanction, generally within 24 hours. That's when the early guilty plea or appeals process begins. Simply put: a charge is issued three whole days earlier than it is in the NBL, which is a league that should encourage efficiency, considering a team will often have two games in three nights. It's orders of magnitude faster and more efficient than the way the NBL or Basketball Australia operate following a potentially chargeable incident.
Why can't the NBL employ a version of a Match Review Officer to issue charges swiftly after games?
Just this season, we've seen the drawn-out process lead to some absurd outcomes. Cairns Taipans import Rob Edwards exhibited inappropriate behaviour toward officials on October 27. He was suspended for one game. The problem is that the sanction was handed out on November 6, and he had since already played a game against the Brisbane Bullets. Thankfully, for the sake of avoiding controversy, the Taipans lost that game, but Edwards theoretically shouldn't have been playing in it.
The same thing happened back in 2021. Perth Wildcats import Vic Law headbutted an opponent. He was permitted to play in the Wildcats' following game against the Tasmania JackJumpers as the league assessed the incident. He was then handed a one-game suspension; again, he theoretically shouldn't have been allowed to play in that game against the JackJumpers, but the bureaucratic hoops that are involved in the process of charging someone take far too long to jump through.
It wasn't intentional, but the league sure took advantage of the November FIBA window to drag this process out in slow-motion. Unfortunately, that created an ecosystem for innuendo and rumour to flourish.
The usual cries of 'MBL' flooded every comment section that mentioned this incident. Of course, the NBL's owner Larry Kestelman owns a 15% stake in United, so the conspiracy-brained fans out there were quick to call out a conflict and claim he may play puppet master and guide the outcome in Melbourne's favour. What's important to note, however, is that Kestelman's NBL pays Harrell an ambassador fee - and it's a non-trivial amount of money - so whatever perceived conflict that exists, exists on both sides.
The prolonged process also created a breeding ground for more unsavoury messages to unfortunately be directed at both Harrell and Davis, the latter of whom had made some serious allegations of racial language being used by spectators in the incident. It's probably impossible to stamp out that sort of online abuse, but the delayed process undoubtedly didn't help. This was, in-turn, why the 36ers requested that media not be included in Monday's tribunal; there was a fear that it would open Davis up to more scrutiny, and subsequently more online abuse.
The NBL has made significant strides in the Kestelman era, but there are some really basic, procedural processes that are still stuck in yesteryear.
An expedited, more efficient charging and sanctions process is one that clearly needs revamping and is among the easiest to fix.
Thoughts on the charges
Let's go in reverse order.
The NBL announced on Tuesday afternoon that one spectator has been banned for life, while another was issued a 10-year ban. Both are from all NBL games in all venues.
This one was easy; fans can't maliciously put hands on players.
Players - and any staffer working these games, for that matter - need a safe space to do their respective jobs, so the substantial sanction for the spectators was warranted.
"We hope this sends a clear message that sitting courtside at NBL games is a privilege," NBL CEO David Stevenson said. "One of the great things about basketball is sitting up close to talented players, and we will always strive to protect and preserve that experience."
Should the NBL have immediately banned all four fans indefinitely, pending the result of their investigation? Definitely.
Did the league probably drag its feet on that obvious positive PR move they could've made because we're in a FIBA break and there are no NBL games to be banned from? Almost certainly yes.
However, the handwringing from some fans regarding how long that investigation was taking was unbelievably unreasonable, and those who engaged in it were unfortunately telling on themselves. The investigation into those fans couldn't be concluded until the testimony from the single-member tribunal was in, because there was an expectation of more evidence and testimony coming to light, so, no, the spectators were never going to avoid a considerable ban; these are private citizens, amid a situation where very serious allegations were thrown out there, so due diligence, from a legal perspective, was reasonable. That part of the investigation dragging out was a byproduct of the inefficiencies of the entire game review process.
Harrell received a three-game suspension for "inappropriate grabbing or handling of a spectator", while Davis received a two-game suspension for the same charge. Notwithstanding what the spectators said toward the 36ers bench - Davis, of course, alleged some racist language was used - we have that same rule in reverse: players can't maliciously put hands on fans. The tribunal determined that was the case so, with the base penalty for the charge being "up to 10 games" and considering the alleged provocation that took place, suspensions of three and two games, respectively, isn't an unreasonable outcome. There's a frame of thought that the bans could've been longer, so it was unsurprising to see the 36ers accept the findings.
The sanctions for the on-court incident were slightly more dubious, though.
Harrell was handed two charges of striking ($1,550 fine each) and a charge of engaging in a melee ($585 fine). There's vision of Harrell throwing a closed-fist punch that connects to Ili's face, so it was surprising to see the 36ers big-man not receive at least a one-game suspension for that act in the scuffle.
"How you come away with only fines for a punch and slaps is mind-boggling," a different NBL General Manager told ESPN.
If we hearken back to last season, Aron Baynes received a one-game suspension - as part of a multi-game ban - for simply bumping Lat Mayen on the way to the tunnels at half-time of a game between the Bullets and Taipans. Back in 2022, Matt Hodgson - then playing for the Wildcats - threw a pair of open-hand strikes to Dejan Vasiljevic's face and was suspended for two games.
We're entering precarious territory where a punch in the face doesn't warrant a suspension of some sort.
Is there a reasonable argument that could be made that Ili should've gotten more than his $585 fine for being the third man into the scuffle? Sure. It's not suspension worthy, but it probably should've been more than what United assistant coach David Barlow received (he was also hit with a $585 fine) for entering the court as a peacemaker when he wasn't permitted to.