On January 14, Beijing time, the CBA officially issued a heavy fine against the conflict between Han Dejun and Weims in the Liao-Guangdong war, of which Han Dejun was suspended for 7 games and fined 200,000 yuan. Weems was suspended for five games and fined $140,000. And this fine caused a lot of controversy, the reason is very simple, some people feel that Han Dejun, who suffered a greater loss by breaking his nose bone, became the party who was punished more fiercely, which was not fair.
However, some people feel that Han Dejun should be punished more severely, because although the cause of the incident was that Weems broke through and hit Han Dejun in the face with his elbow, after all, this action was before the whistle, and the subsequent conflict occurred after the referee whistle. In the case that the referee has already suspended the game, at this time Han Dejun got up again to try to hit Weems, indicating that he was the party that provoked the dispute, and Weems belonged to the counterattack, and the CBA used this as a principle to issue a heavier fine to Han Dejun, and there was nothing improper.
In fact, these two statements are no problem, no matter who the CBA official wants to punish more heavily, there are valid reasons. But the crux of the matter is that the CBA's official penalty standard has always been based on "Whoever tries to retaliate after the whistle should bear greater responsibility and be fined heavier?" "For principle? Then we may wish to take a look at the following case.
In the 2016 match between the Shandong men's basketball team and the Tianjin men's basketball team, Shandong player Wu Ke hit the back of the head of Tianjin foreign aid Mark Hill with his right elbow, causing the latter to almost fall. The referee also sounded the whistle decisively at that time, but the angry Mark Hill still ignored the obstruction of many people and tried to retaliate against Wu Ke. And Wu Ke himself is not as "brave" as Weems, and after beating the weak heart, he trotted all the way to avoid the expansion of the conflict.
According to the principle that in the conflict between Han Dejun and Weems, the retaliator should be punished more severely, then it should be that Mark Hill, who retaliated after the whistle, was punished more severely. But in the end, how did the CBA officials punish this conflict?
Wu Ke, who maliciously fouled before the whistle, but did not fight back to the angry opponent after the whistle, was eventually banned for 10 games, and The foreign assistant Mark Hill, who was angry after the foul and retaliated against the opponent, was only banned for 5 games. Please note that this is still the premise that Wu Ke did not fight back.
Did you find it? In the two incidents, the first malicious foul before the whistle was a foreign aid and a local player, and the first to retaliate after the whistle was a local player and a foreign aid. Under normal circumstances, the heavier party to be punished should also be a local player and a foreign aid, but in fact? In the end, when the CBA officially punished, those who were punished heavier were all local, and those who were punished more lightly were all foreign aid.
Therefore, if some people feel that Han Dejun's punishment is heavier than Weems's, it is obvious that the CBA's official treatment of Wu Ke 6 years ago was unreasonable; and vice versa, if the punishment of Wu Ke that year was reasonable, then the punishment of Han Dejun this time is unreasonable.
Malicious fouls on the court, or attempts to retaliate after being fouled, should be subject to heavy fines, and that's no problem. But the CBA official should be a bowl of water level, otherwise every time the local and foreign aid conflict, no matter who fouls first or who retaliates first, it is more severe to punish local players than to punish foreign aid, how does this not make people question?