Daniel Eade writes on the NBL for BackPageLead.

For some inexcusable reason, the NBL tribunal, headed by Scott Derwin, has failed to suspend Perth Wildcats centre Andre Brown for striking New Zealand Breakers forward Mika Vukona during game three of the NBL semi-finals series.

Brown, as clear as day, strikes Vukona in the face after an altercation between Brown and Breakers big man Gary Wilkinson at half-court led to a very very mini-melée, with more peace keepers involved than agitators, as potential chaos threatened to take over before cooler heads prevailed.

Brown was reported for striking, and Wilkinson along with Wildcats guard Kevin Lisch were reported for unduly rough play.

As staggering as it was that Wilkinson and Lisch were reported, for nothing more than puffing out their chests, I am amazed to see the NBL, again, not suspend a player for striking. Be it with an open hand or a fist.

The NBL tribunal failed to act and bring Luke Martin (then) of the Wollongong Hawks or Jesse Wagstaff of the Wildcats before the tribunal after both players struck one another during the 2010 Grand Final series, now the NBL tribunal has botched the Brown case by finding him guilty of striking but fining him $1,000 and not suspending him.

For a league that so often loves to boast that they have players constantly in schools doing basketball clinics, what kind of message does this send to those young basketballers?

And also, what precedence has been set here?

If any player in the future strikes another player to the face, with an open hand or fist, will they be able to get off just by highlighting the Brown v NBL Tribunal case of April 2011?

How Brown's strike can add up to $1,000, and Wilkinson and Lisch (who were also both found guilty of unduly rough play and fined $500 and $750 respectively), also be forced to make a deposit to the NBL is outstanding.

In the tribunal's finding, it read; The Tribunal imposes a monetary penalty of $1,000.00 against player Brown. The fine is payable to the NBL within 14 days, in default of which the player is suspended for 2 NBL games. The Tribunal has chosen not to impose a game suspension as well and in so doing has taken into account the guilty plea and the player's contriteness for the incident. The Tribunal also accepts that there was some provocation on player Brown in the events leading up to this incident.

So, because Brown pleaded guilty and was very sorry for striking Vukona, that is reason to not suspend him? How would the justice system work if criminals were given such a long leash to do bad things and all they had to do was turn around and say was that they were deeply sorry.

A one game suspension for Brown would have been suffice, and I can't comprehend how a player who pleads guilty can not receive a suspension at the very least. Why the fine?

In the last few weeks the NBL has fined the New Zealand Breakers and Perth Wildcats $10,000 each for failing to attend the NBL Awards night in Melbourne (which was scheduled 48 hours before game one of the semi-final series), fined the Wildcats for not attending the post-game press conference after game three (fair enough, but we'll wait to see if the Wildcats have an excuse) and fined three players at the tribunal.

To show that these fines are not a money making exercise, I call on Larry Sengstock, CEO of Basketball Australia, to donate the $23,250 accumulated in fines in the last few weeks to a charity.