Is there really no quantifiable standard for the CBA League's foul-looking penalties for players? In fact, this is really the case, it seems that Yao Ming should pay attention! In particular, We can see the obvious difference between Han Dejun vs Weems and Xu Zhonghao vs Liao Sanning, the most serious of which is that Han Dejun (the injured) actually fined 200,000 yuan plus 7 games of suspension, but Xu Zhonghao's deliberate injury is very obvious, but he was only fined 100,000 yuan plus 3 games of suspension, which really makes people wonder why the difference is so big! Is Yao Ming really inactive? Let's take a look at it with the basketball brother!
The CBA's penalties are unfair
Presumably, Han Dejun vs Weems is still fresh in everyone's memory, after all, this incident almost caused the players of both sides to fight each other, but when the CBA company's penalty results came out, we found that the punishment for Han Dejun was obviously too heavy, especially the ban of 7 games plus a fine of 200,000 yuan. Although he was the direct initiator of this conflict, the origin of the matter was in the Guangdong team's small foreign aid Weems, if it were not for his deliberate clawing at Han Dejun's face door, Han Dejun would not have committed such an extreme act. The penalty for Weems is a five-game ban plus a fine of $140,000.
The CBA penalty appears in multiple versions
In fact, from here we can see more confused, the reason is also very simple, not to mention the number of games banned by these two people, even the amount of fines has a big gap. But what is the basis for this standard? Is the criterion for a ban and a fine of 28,000 at the same time? But it is very coincidental that the ratio of Han Dejun's fine to the ban is also between this ratio. However, for Xu Zhonghao's punishment basketball brother, I really can't understand it. But why do you say that? Because the CBA official penalty for him is a 3-game ban plus a fine of 100,000 yuan. His average penalty standard per game is a 33,300 yuan fine for a game of suspension, which is obviously a lot higher.
Could it be that the CBA's penalty standard is arbitrary?
Could it be that this penalty is arbitrary by the CBA league? This is really a bit irresponsible, but why can't the CBA league introduce a specific sentencing standard? For example, what kind of violation requires a few games of suspension plus how much is the fine? Give a minimum standard, depending on the severity of the violation can be accumulated in multiples of 1 as appropriate! In this way, the players can be very clear about what kind of punishment they will be punished by the league for their next move, which will form a psychological deterrent to the players subconsciously. Although deliberate injury in the CBA arena cannot be eliminated from the source, similar incidents will undoubtedly be reduced a lot.
Quantify the benefits of foul-handed punishment
When the CBA company introduced two rounds of salary restrictions, the salaries of players have more or less declined to varying degrees, and if they have another incident of deliberate injury on the field, then their year-end income will undoubtedly decline a large part. I believe that no matter which player will not be unable to go through his wallet, coupled with the punishment of the ban, which will make the player's home team in a more disadvantageous position in future games. Just like the Guangdong team, with Zhao Rui's suspension due to injury and Weems' ban, the overall strength of the Guangdong team was at least 40%, which directly led to the Guangdong team's undefeated divine feat being broken many times!
It is best to link the violation to the year-end dividends of the clubs
If possible, it should also be linked to the club's year-end earnings, such as a club that has a violation of the constitution to reduce the percentage of the club's year-end dividend accordingly. And when the CBA league introduces the quantitative criteria for punishment, whether it is the club, the manager or the player itself, they will inevitably carefully consider the serious consequences of intentionally injuring people. Because this is likely to cause a sharp reduction in the club's year-end dividend. At that time, the club itself will inevitably further restrain the behavior of the players on the field, because no one will be unable to live with money. It won't be long before the deliberate act of hurting people is mitigated from the root cause.
Even Yao Ming did not have the ability to make a decision
However, even Yao Ming needs the consent of various clubs for the introduction of this policy. The reason is also very simple, the clubs also have another layer of identity, that is, the shareholders of the CBA company. Since they are shareholders, they have voting rights in every policy of the CBA company. If more than half of the votes against it, this policy will undoubtedly die completely, which is the sad point of the joint stock company. But if there is no accident, there should be many companies voting against it, and the reason is very simple, which will further reduce the competitive intensity of the CBA League, which is very unfavorable for the development of the CBA League, but is this really the case?
Malicious harm must be addressed at the root
But the truth is not so, as many fans have said, many teams rely on deliberate injuries to abolish the opponent's main players, which will also make the opponent's comprehensive strength suffer a heavy blow. However, this kind of behavior is very unworthy of advocacy, and the reason is simple, if it is a normal injury to a player, this fan will not have much opinion. But if it is a malicious attack from the opponent, which leads to the player's injury, this really should not be. Because similar incidents have happened many times this season! If this behavior is not solved from the root cause, then the CBA League will be directly changed to "Huashan On the Sword"! What do you think about that?