Ja Morant Receives 25-Game Suspension From NBA

[dice]

absolutely everybody in the media anticipated suspensions. and silver wasn't forecasting anything. so i don't know how either of these punishments could be considered out of left field. there have been no prior examples of anybody doing what morant did either, so both the act and the punishment were unprecedented. and far more have said the punishments are too lenient than too harsh

Malik Beasley was convicted of committing a felony gun charge where he pointed a gun and threatened people in a car with it. You would say this is an order of magnitude worse than appearing on social media with a gun, not breaking a law, not threatening an individual, and not breaking a team rule right?

He got 12 games for that. That was 2 years ago.

Social media gaff is historically a fine. You are historically not suspending people for things where there is no law broke, no league rule broken, and no victim. If you can find an example where all three of those things are true, please bring it forward.

And yes, I agree people were forecasting a big suspension, that doesn't mean it had any reasonable precedent. It doesn't, see above comment.

i was not even aware of the beasley incident, which probably has a lot to do with this. clearly the league is prioritizing image here

[Tottery]

Given there is no accusation of a crime, there is no civil action, there is no victim allegedly or otherwise, there is no NBA rule permitting this (that I know of), and the league has a deep history of covering up drugs, domestic violence incidents, rape, and all kinds of other actual victimized felony type behavior, I'd say Ja Morant was absolutely railroaded.

Miles Bridges committed and was convicted of felony domestic assault and sent his child's mother to the hospital after choking her unconscious and we're saying that's about 20% worse than showing up on instagram live feed with a gun? GTFO of here NBA.

Morant's an absolutely moron for putting himself in this mess and not reading the political climate and not getting his head out of his rear and reading the room, but this is still insane relative to the way NBA typically suspends players. I don't know what's going on here relative to the way they typically bend over backwards to protect their stars, but it's pretty nuts, maybe that was just a David Stern thing, and Adam Silver's got a whole different agenda.

https://larrybrownsports.com/basketball/ja-morant-nba-gun-violation/612249

That link goes into depth about the NBA's rules. Essentially, you can not posess a firearm while on NBA business. The first time he was in Denver due to a game, which is NBA business. I'm not sure where he was or what he was doing for the 2nd account.

He may have violated rules the first time, but the club doesn't count as NBA business. The team plane, and facilities count. If he brought the gun on the team plane it would be a violation.

I believe it wasn't clear if it was his gun or not the first time, but that may have been cleared up. If it was his gun, and it was on the team plane, he would be subject to punishment, this second thing though doesn't violate anything that I am aware of.

The first time was at a Denver strip club. He was in Denver for NBA business. Thats the violation. Being on a bus or plane doesn't matter if you're somewhere for work.

The 2nd time was in a vehicle after the Grizzlies were eliminated.

[dice]

Here is why your comparison(s) make no sense: you’re comparing isolated incidents (like the Edwards situation) to a series of events and a pattern of behavior.

The fight with the teenager where he brandished a firearm. The confrontation between his entourage and the Pacers where laser pointers were pointed at the Pacer team bus. Threatening a shoe store employee. Tweeting “hollows (points) are free.” He and his dad getting into it with Shannon Sharpe during a televised game. Flashing a gun on social media in nightclub…

…and those are only the ones we know about. Finally, the league gives him 8 games for his conduct.

…then, he flashes a gun on social media again.

If Edwards did something similar a second, third…tenth time, you don’t think the punishment would be harsher?

If the latest video was all there was, there’s no suspension. I doubt there’s even a fine.

Flashing a gun on social media is not against league rules. It should not matter. The league has explicitly collective bargaining rules around guns, and this isn't one of them. If they want it to be one, they should add it in the next CBA.

Agree with all those things being a pattern of behavior that is really concerning. That said, two things can be true:

1: Morant didn't break any league rule in this incident and the punishment is excessive, and even if it hints towards things you don't want to happen in the league, no league rule is broken.

2: Morant appears to have a lot of issues that feel like they're putting him on a really bad path, and he needs to wake the F up and get off of it.

This latest issue is an example of behavior you don't want to see that adds up to the overall picture of negative things, but it isn't a league rule being broken, a local law being broken, has no victims, and generally isn't something the league should punish unless they want to add to their gun rules, which are EXPLICITLY stated in the CBA and were bargained with the players to create EXPLICIT rules.

You can't state this violates moral hazards or wasn't considered or anything else because they very explicitly discuss guns in an agreement that was hammered out between probably a 100 lawyers.

So yes, if you ask me is Morant on a bad path? Yes, absolutely. Is this another example of that? Probably. Is it right for the NBA to punish him for an area that he did not violate a team rule, league rule, law, victimize anyone, or do anything except piss off some people whom are morally against guns even though they're legal? No, it's not.

If I were in Morant's circle, I'd be doing whatever I could to wake him the F up, but he still didn't violate a league rule here.

Again, it’s the pattern of behavior, not the incident itself, and you seem fixated on the legality of the specific incident. That isn’t the point.

Something I want to repeat: all of the things I listed are only the things that we know about. When Silver made his cryptic comments about Ja during the Finals, he specifically said “we’ve uncovered a fair amount of additional information.” As many have pointed out, the league has a history of covering things up and protecting its stars, so it begs the question: what don’t we know?

Ja is clearly on a bad path, it was becoming increasingly public, and the league told him to knock it off. He responded by publicly flashing a firearm again. He clearly isn’t getting the message.

and "conduct detrimental to the league" is clearly actionable whether a specific nba rule was violated or not. if it were not the union would be able to get these suspensions overruled. urinating on a sleeping homeless person is not against nba rules, but if an nba player was caught doing that you can bet he would be suspended. and rightfully so

[dougthonus]

The first time was at a Denver strip club. He was in Denver for NBA business. Thats the violation. Being on a bus or plane doesn't matter if you're somewhere for work.

You're interpretation of this is incorrect, and I don't mean that as an insult or anything, it isn't my subjective opinion either.

It doesn't matter why he is in Denver. The NBA business part is the part where he is in a team facility or on a team plane or some other "team" piece to the puzzle. Being at a club on his personal time while the business piece of his day is not happening is not "on NBA business" just like when you leave work and you do something, it is no longer under the purview of your company.

The CBA explicitly defines these things, it isn't me making this up, and it isn't my opinion on the matter, you can go look into the details of the actual CBA and read about it if you want, but in the area you quoted, they even discuss explicitly at team facilities and on the team plane, but this is why if he brought a weapon onto the team plane it would have made a big difference.

The 2nd time was in a vehicle after the Grizzlies were eliminated.

Which again, once he leaves the team facility, and his "work" for the day is done, isn't relevant to it being official team business (not saying you are suggesting otherwise, just stating it explicitly).

[dougthonus]

and "conduct detrimental to the league" is clearly actionable whether a specific nba rule was violated or not. if it were not the union would be able to get these suspensions overruled. urinating on a sleeping homeless person is not against nba rules, but if an nba player was caught doing that you can bet he would be suspended. and rightfully so

The difference here is that conduct detrimental to the league is a catch all. The CBA explicitly discusses guns and what is impermissible with them which makes generic conduct detrimental a poor argument. They explicitly called out guns, to say they didn't think of guns is therefore ridiculous.

That said, by default, anything illegal (such as pissing on someone) is also something they can punish you for. What is the stiffest "conduct detrimental" punishment you can find where:
No law is broken
No league rule is broken
No civil action is pending
There is no victim / injured party (emotionally or physically)
There is no protected class of people targeted

I would guess we're talking in the sub 100k fine territory.

[dice]

and "conduct detrimental to the league" is clearly actionable whether a specific nba rule was violated or not. if it were not the union would be able to get these suspensions overruled. urinating on a sleeping homeless person is not against nba rules, but if an nba player was caught doing that you can bet he would be suspended. and rightfully so

The difference here is that conduct detrimental to the league is a catch all. The CBA explicitly discusses guns and what is impermissible with them which makes generic conduct detrimental a poor argument. They explicitly called out guns, to say they didn't think of guns is therefore ridiculous

nobody said they didn't think of guns. but they clearly didn't think of players waving guns around on social media. nobody would reasonably anticipate that level of stupidity. not specifically warning against that kind of behavior is not the same thing as authorizing it

"hey, nobody said i couldn't do THIS" is not a reasonable defense

[dougthonus]

nobody said they didn't think of guns. but they clearly didn't think of players waving guns around on social media. nobody would reasonably anticipate that level of stupidity. not specifically warning against that kind of behavior is not the same thing as authorizing it

"hey, nobody said i couldn't do THIS" is not a reasonable defense

The league also has all kinds of social media rules and thought about that too, so yes, you ABSOLUTELY need to define what you can and can't do in areas where you had lawyers talk about it.

Is it illegal for Morant to go hunting? Can he then pose with the a gun as long as he's wearing hunting gear on social media?

Again, go find any violation of conduct detrimental where:
No law is broken
No league rule is broken
No victim (emotional or physical) exists
No civil action is pending

where the penalty went above a sub 100k fine. You will not find such a thing, because this penalty is completely without precedent as far as I can tell.

[dice]

nobody said they didn't think of guns. but they clearly didn't think of players waving guns around on social media. nobody would reasonably anticipate that level of stupidity. not specifically warning against that kind of behavior is not the same thing as authorizing it

"hey, nobody said i couldn't do THIS" is not a reasonable defense

The league also has all kinds of social media rules and thought about that too, so yes, you ABSOLUTELY need to define what you can and can't do in areas where you had lawyers talk about it.

nope. no need to specifically define. the suspension will stand

[dougthonus]

nope. no need to specifically define. the suspension will stand

It might stand, I have no idea what the arbitrator will decide if the NBPA goes after it. I've made no discussion over what will happen.

I've said it is excessive and unfair relative to any comparable situation. Felony gun convictions for Felton (4 games) and Beasley (12 games) were both dealt with far more leniently despite felony convictions. Both involved those players physically threatening someone with a gun.

It's hard for me to see the case where no conviction, complaint, or victim results in a worse punishment by comparable standards.

This isn't a statement of what will happen, it is a statement about what is fair relative to the league's standards, rules, and other actions.

[dice]

nope. no need to specifically define. the suspension will stand

It might stand, I have no idea what the arbitrator will decide if the NBPA goes after it. I'm suggesting it is completely without any comparable precedent, and it is extraordinarily excessive relative to violent felony conviction punishments or other non violent social media gaffs.

That said, an arbitrator may decide anything and Morant himself may not even fight it because he doesn't want his PR to get even worse.

i agree that it doesn't have a precedent. the whole extended fiasco has no precedent. but you're one of very few who seems to think the punishment is too harsh. was what beasley did worse? sure. he also served 4 months of jail time. maybe the league factored that in. or, more likely, it simply had a much smaller impact on league image. they are probably making an example of morant in a way that was pointless with beasley because morant's behavior is more correctable

[dougthonus]

i agree that it doesn't have a precedent. the whole extended fiasco has no precedent.

That's not really true, I named two much worse gun incidents, there are also many incidents of social media gaffs and things that offended people (they're all dealt with by fines for the most part). Kyrie Irving a bit worse because he refused to apologize and doubled down on his gaff. So there are lots of comparable types of things.

but you're one of very few who seems to think the punishment is too harsh.

It's not hard to be in a minority and also be correct.

was what beasley did worse? sure. he also served 4 months of jail time. maybe the league factored that in. or, more likely, it simply had a much smaller impact on league image. they are probably making an example of morant in a way that was pointless with beasley because morant's behavior is more correctable

I think both those things are likely true, but any time someone uses the "make an example... " you are almost exclusively and automatically in excessive and unfair territory which, as I'm almost always against. Creating rules after the fact just bothers me pretty deeply from a moral perspective. Especially when these rules were all negotiated previously, and the league likely knew that they didn't want this to happen but purposefully choose not to negotiate it because they knew it would be a hard thing to win in negotiation and cause them to give up something else.

That said, you don't need to be morally outraged around the league making stuff up as they go along despite explicitly negotiating lots of rules, I get that it's not popular to feel that way either.

[Tottery]

The first time was at a Denver strip club. He was in Denver for NBA business. Thats the violation. Being on a bus or plane doesn't matter if you're somewhere for work.

You're interpretation of this is incorrect, and I don't mean that as an insult or anything, it isn't my subjective opinion either.

It doesn't matter why he is in Denver. The NBA business part is the part where he is in a team facility or on a team plane or some other "team" piece to the puzzle. Being at a club on his personal time while the business piece of his day is not happening is not "on NBA business" just like when you leave work and you do something, it is no longer under the purview of your company.

The CBA explicitly defines these things, it isn't me making this up, and it isn't my opinion on the matter, you can go look into the details of the actual CBA and read about it if you want, but in the area you quoted, they even discuss explicitly at team facilities and on the team plane, but this is why if he brought a weapon onto the team plane it would have made a big difference.

The 2nd time was in a vehicle after the Grizzlies were eliminated.

Which again, once he leaves the team facility, and his "work" for the day is done, isn't relevant to it being official team business (not saying you are suggesting otherwise, just stating it explicitly).

I've seen this talked about on sports news ad nausea. He was in Denver on NBA business. I feel like some people are trying to reach because they think he should be able to wave a firearm around like an idiot without repercussions.

Let's put their gun rules aside. NBA contracts have a conduct detrimental to the league clause agreed with the players union. If they feel what he has done is detrimental to the league, he can be suspended. He is already a role model for children, so its not a good look.

[dougthonus]

I've seen this talked about on sports news ad nausea. He was in Denver on NBA business. I feel like some people are trying to reach because they think he should be able to wave a firearm around like an idiot without repercussions.

Again, go read the CBA. People can say that, but they're wrong. I've actually studied the CBA fairly in depth.

He wasn't like running through a crowded street waving a gun around. He was in a social media post, in a vehicle, and it is permissible in Tennessee to have a gun in a vehicle with you, so yes, by default, if something is legal, it shouldn't have repercussions.

Let's put their gun rules aside. NBA contracts have a conduct detrimental to the league clause agreed with the players union. If they feel what he has done is detrimental to the league, he can be suspended. He is already a role model for children, so its not a good look.

Go find any penalty for something "conduct detrimental" that was more than a fine where no law was broken and there was no victim (emotional or physical) or civil complaint. I'm aware of zero such things.

The league suspended Malik Beasley for 12 games 2 years ago for being convicted of a felony gun charge where he threatened people with a gun. It is hard for me to see the argument that doing something legal with a gun results in a suspension 2x as long vs a felony conviction with a gun.

But again, you don't have to care that the NBA is just making this up as it goes along, most people don't seem to. I'm pretty passionate about ex post facto rules/punishments. If you're using conduct detrimental then you should be basing it on comparable incidents there are many social media gaffs where something offensive but not illegal was done. Those are typically "public apology and a 10-50k fine" type of deals.

[Tottery]

I've seen this talked about on sports news ad nausea. He was in Denver on NBA business. I feel like some people are trying to reach because they think he should be able to wave a firearm around like an idiot without repercussions.

Again, go read the CBA. People can say that, but they're wrong. I've actually studied the CBA fairly in depth.

He wasn't like running through a crowded street waving a gun around. He was in a social media post, in a vehicle, and it is permissible in Tennessee to have a gun in a vehicle with you, so yes, by default, if something is legal, it shouldn't have repercussions.

Let's put their gun rules aside. NBA contracts have a conduct detrimental to the league clause agreed with the players union. If they feel what he has done is detrimental to the league, he can be suspended. He is already a role model for children, so its not a good look.

Go find any penalty for something "conduct detrimental" that was more than a fine where no law was broken and there was no victim (emotional or physical) or civil complaint. I'm aware of zero such things.

The league suspended Malik Beasley for 12 games 2 years ago for being convicted of a felony gun charge where he threatened people with a gun. It is hard for me to see the argument that doing something legal with a gun results in a suspension 2x as long vs a felony conviction with a gun.

But again, you don't have to care that the NBA is just making this up as it goes along, most people don't seem to. I'm pretty passionate about ex post facto rules/punishments. If you're using conduct detrimental then you should be basing it on comparable incidents there are many social media gaffs where something offensive but not illegal was done. Those are typically "public apology and a 10-50k fine" type of deals.

I'm not going to argue about your second point. The punishments vary all over the place and they just make it up as they go. It's not consistent, but I personally feel Morants suspension is justified.

Again, I live in TN and own a firearm. I know the state law. Firearms cannot be in eyesight if you are in the vehicle. It has to be stored or locked away when not present. Waving the gun around is brandishing. It can cause public annoyance and fear, which is illegal.

[dice]

i agree that it doesn't have a precedent. the whole extended fiasco has no precedent.

That's not really true, I named two much worse gun incidents, there are also many incidents of social media gaffs and things that offended people (they're all dealt with by fines for the most part). Kyrie Irving a bit worse because he refused to apologize and doubled down on his gaff. So there are lots of comparable types of things.

you have to mix and match incidents, though

but you're one of very few who seems to think the punishment is too harsh.

It's not hard to be in a minority and also be correct.

trust me, i know

was what beasley did worse? sure. he also served 4 months of jail time. maybe the league factored that in. or, more likely, it simply had a much smaller impact on league image. they are probably making an example of morant in a way that was pointless with beasley because morant's behavior is more correctable

I think both those things are likely true, but any time someone uses the "make an example... " you are almost exclusively and automatically in excessive and unfair territory which, as I'm almost always against. Creating rules after the fact just bothers me pretty deeply from a moral perspective. Especially when these rules were all negotiated previously, and the league likely knew that they didn't want this to happen but purposefully choose not to negotiate it because they knew it would be a hard thing to win in negotiation and cause them to give up something else.

That said, you don't need to be morally outraged around the league making stuff up as they go along despite explicitly negotiating lots of rules, I get that it's not popular to feel that way either.

i largely agree. i just don't think the suspension is unreasonable in a vacuum, so i find it difficult to rail against it by using previous suspensions which may well have been too light. even though that's a perfectly reasonable point