No, this has nothing to do with the robbery/shooting that occurred earlier today at Greenbelt 5. (or the Dostoyevsky novel, for that matter)
Was going to write about the ongoing NCAA Final 4, as I was in the Arena last Friday watching the matchup between San Beda and Letran. The game turned out to be better than I expected with the Red Lions, 3 time defending champions, barely pulling off a win against the Rey Guevarra-less Knights, and advancing to the NCAA Finals in the process. Little did I know that while this was ongoing, action of a different kind was taking place over at the Araneta Coliseum.
Of course by now we've all heard the story. During the PBA game between Smart Gilas and Burger King a fan by the name of Alain Katigbak was assaulted by Burger King player Wynne Arboleda. According to reports from the people who were there, Katigbak had been hurling invectives directed at Burger King players all game long. Apparently, Katigbak's choice words were too much for Arboleda (who obviously does not subscribe to this idiom), and that pushed him over the edge.
This incident has elicited responses from various people, with equally varying positions on the matter. These range from: banning Arboleda from the PBA outright, to taking it easy on him since the fan deserved what he got anyway. There is a general consensus though that regardless of the reasons, assaulting a fan is wrong, and should be penalized. The question now is: how severe should the penalty be?
The problem here is that the PBA does not have a standard penalty for these type of infractions. Thus, I will focus on the possible sanctions that the PBA could/should impose on Arboleda, using by analogy, how penalties are imposed in our legal system.
The problem here is that the PBA does not have a standard penalty for these type of infractions. Thus, I will focus on the possible sanctions that the PBA could/should impose on Arboleda, using by analogy, how penalties are imposed in our legal system.
The Facts:
A fan (Katigbak) was assaulted, through means of a kick and several punches, by a PBA player (Arboleda). Based on what I saw from the pictures, and the injuries that Katigbak sustained, that would have been classified as a violation of Article 266 (Slight physical injuries) under the Revised Penal Code (which is an option that Katigbak can actually pursue, should he choose to). That crime carries a penalty of arresto menor, which has a prison term of 1 day to ten days as minimum, and up to 21 days to 30 days in the maximum.
However, as the PBA is not a court of law, the penalties that it can levy would be limited insofar as Arboleda is concerned. Applying the analogy, if we convert the prison term to playing dates, the PBA can actually suspend Arboleda anywhere from one game up to thirty games (which in PBA-time could mean the rest of the conference up to the next).
Precedent cases:
a)Danny Ildefonso/Marc Pingris-charged at a heckling fan, but were not able to hit him. Penalty: 1 game suspension, P30,000 fine for Ildefonso and P10,000 for Pingris.
b)Marlou Aquino- "allegedly" attacked fan who got into an argument with his daughter. Penalty: P20,000 fine.
c)Ron Artest- rushed to the midlevel seats to punch several fans who were heckling and throwing cups of ice filled beverage at him. Penalty: Suspension for 73 games.
Clearly, as seen from the previous penalties, there is a distinction between a mere attempt to attack, and a successful hit. Based on the Danny I/Pingris case it seems obvious that a few games suspension would be too light a penalty. In Arboleda's case, he was able to swing at his heckler 4/5 times, hitting on a couple of attempts. But should the PBA go the Artest route and suspend him the same amount of games?
The Verdict:
As in legal cases, American jurisprudence is not conclusive on us, but it does have persuasive effect. By hitting a fan Arboleda crossed the line and, in the process, endangered the image and possibly the lifeblood of the league itself. Because of this, the PBA has to make it clear that it will not tolerate such actions. However, he has shown remorse and has issued a public letter of apology to Katigbak. PBA Commissioner Sonny Barrios has set a meeting with Arboleda tomorrow, and might issue his ruling anytime after that.
Following the legal analogy, it might be fair to suspend him from anywhere between 11-20 games (or until the end of the current conference), plus a hefty fine. In legal parlance, this is like giving him the penalty in its medium term. This takes into consideration the mitigating circumstance of him admitting to his guilt, and issuing an apology.
***************************************************
On the other hand, I think Arboleda's apology letter does raise a good point. Besides sanctioning erring players, it is also important that the PBA and the coliseum security do a better job in preventing fans from becoming too unruly. Anybody who has watched a live basketball game, particularly those games featuring popular teams, would note certain individuals who seem to be taking their constitutionally protected right to free speech a bit too far.
Of course, this is easier said than done. It will always be tough to determine, except in extreme instances, when a fan is going too far. The end result would probably follow the principle of legal realism (and would depend more on what the judge ate for breakfast). Like refereeing, it could be too strict or lax, depending on who's calling it. Which will likely cause more confusion, and just might drive the fans (who are, as the PBA has stressed on many occasions, its lifeblood) away. Not good.
An alternative solution, was actually proposed by Andy Jao while he was covering the Smart Gilas-Burger King game. Dr. J suggested that the courtside seats be removed, as these make the fans easily accessible to the players on court and vice versa. However, I don't think this is feasible for the following reasons: a) seats at courtside are the most expensive ones, thus removing a big revenue generator from the league ticket sales; b) as Ron Artest showed us: if there's a will, there's a way.
So now the dilemma.
If there are no better solutions put forward in the near future, then I suggest a modification to Dr. J's idea. Instead of removing the courtside seats, why not put some separation between the fans and the players through a steel cage (similar to what they do in MMA). And this isn't even a new idea, as it has been done in the distant past. Consider it as a return to the basics.
If there are no better solutions put forward in the near future, then I suggest a modification to Dr. J's idea. Instead of removing the courtside seats, why not put some separation between the fans and the players through a steel cage (similar to what they do in MMA). And this isn't even a new idea, as it has been done in the distant past. Consider it as a return to the basics.
After all, this is where the term "cager" finds its roots.
this is really tough...though i do also didn't like what Mr. Arboleda did, i would say i do understand why he did it. i've played basketball as well (not professionally) and has encountered such spectators. these are the types that feels that they own your soul because they paid for their seats. for me, i think Mr. Katigbak didn't deserve what he got but is a good lesson to spectators. Players are human, they have feelings just like everyone else. if one wants respect, he needs to show respect as well. how would you feel if someone from the side street starts cursing you even if you don't know him and on your bad day? you may choose not to confront the person but it would still leave a sting inside you that would disgust you for several minutes.
ReplyDeleteI actually share your sentiments. That's why the second half of my post was devoted to finding ways to prevent something of this sort from happening again.
ReplyDeleteAs you may have heard the PBA suspended Arboleda for the season. It sounds harsher than what it really is (around 40-60 games depending on BK's performance). I still think my proposal (up to the end of this conference) was commensurate to his actions. But obviously, the PBA really wanted to make a statement on this case.
in my opinion, Arboleda should get a harsher penalty than Artest. Artest wasn't the one who initiated the physical interaction. Someone threw a beer cup at him. i'm sure that fan had verbally abused artest too before throwing the cup. Here, it was Arboleda who charged into the stands without any physical initiation from Katigbak.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at it, the PBA matched the penalty levied on Artest. Which to me is like comparing apples and oranges. As I said in my previous comment I think this is more of a "statement" penalty, and not based on the actions of Arboleda and Katigbak per se.
ReplyDeleteIn Artest's case it seems that the suspension (73 games) was imposed on him because of the net impact the whole Detroit-Indiana melee had on the NBA. There had to be a fall guy. Previous to that, a similar case involving a NBA player was given a lesser penalty (see Vernon Maxwell).
Listening to Comm. Barrios' explanation on how they have to protect the image of the league, and retain the fans support, it makes sense to me why such a penalty was imposed on Arboleda.
we always hear the term "cagers" referring to basketball players. this was the old moniker for ballers. the meaning has been lost now. but i was able to come across an article by charley rosen in msn sports about the origin of the term.
ReplyDeleteaccording to rosen, the term cager was given because old basketball courts were caged. hence, anyone inside of it was called a cager. the cage was for the protection of the players and the spectators. so that the fans couldn't get to the players and vice versa. but the practice of caging courts has since died down when they started to televise games.
perhaps it might be a good idea to bring the cage back, or just even a barrier. if there were some kind of barrier to scale it may have changed the outcome of the events. it's either that: a) cooler heads could have gotten to arboleda just in time while he was scaling such a barrier; or b) arboleda's head could have cooled some degrees lower as he struggled to get through the barrier.
That's exactly the point I was driving at when I suggested the return of the "cage". My last link also points to the old cager definition, but thanks for elaborating on it.
ReplyDeleteBtw, I think it would've been nice if you signed in with your name as well, so I'd know who I'm replying to.