seems to me...

Mistake 1: KSU player steals ball
Mistake 2: SDS stands over him
Mistake 3: KSU player charges off bench
Mistake 4: rest of KSU bench follows, attacks SDS
Mistake 5: KU bench clears
Mistake 6: SDS picks up stool
Mistake 7: Weber punts consequences for his players

Mistake 1: KSU player steals ball -- Clearly a punk move but not without precedent. If I were Weber, I would have a talk to this kid, have him run the stairs in front of the rest of the team for about 30 minutes and have him issue a private apology to the KU team. We may never hear about any punishment nor should we really. Also if I were Weber, I would limit my public comments to making it clear that is unacceptable, not how we intend to play and that it will be dealt with sternly but privately.

Mistake 2: SDS stands over him -- Some aver this is acceptable given the punk move the other guy just made. I get that but I would mostly disagree. I understand that viewpoint and I understand what may be going on in De Sousa's head at that point, namely on the verge of an amydala hijack. The technical was appropriate and sufficient. If I were Self I would have addressed that with a low key one on one with De Sousa saying don't do that and with the whole team, saying don't do that. While understandable, it is not the right move but certainly not egregious.

Mistake 3: KSU player charges off bench -- Again, I sort of understand where the KSU players were coming from but we are entering seriously non-game transgressions here. This was the first real escalation. Up to that point it was just gaming, right or wrong, and stuff that was part of the game. Case in point, the Monmouth punk who did the same thing to Enaruna. Looking back Enaruna looks even better today for his complete non-reaction. One can only surmise he wanted to punch the kid in the face but casually strolled away. Good on Tristan. Here, De Sousa was not threatening the punk, just staring him down. That may not have been a good thing but it was still in the game. Leaving the bench was the first truly egregious transgression of escalation. At this point, I am surprised that De Sousa's amygdala was not fully hijacked. Looking at the videos throughout the day from various angles, it is clear that De Sousa is not escalating as a sea of purple is clearly posing a potential threat. This needs to be addressed. Leaving the bench benignly ( meaning simply leaving the bench without making threatening moves) may be against the rules but it is not equivalent to leaving the bench and taking an aggressive and threatening posture. KU players left the bench but in a manner I would label as benignly. Technically a violation, but worthy only of a technical or an in-game suspension. The statues are clear on the penalty. But a couple of Wildcat players had far exceeded benign bench leaving. They were clearly threatening De Sousa. Okay, if it stops there the penalties would be limited to technical or in-game suspension. Furthermore, as coach, those players would have some private penance to pay including apologies and stair running.

Mistake 4: rest of KSU bench follows, attacks SDS -- See my comments above about benign bench clearing. That rule exists as a deterrent. Even if you benignly leave the bench, there has to be a penalty as a deterrent for what could happen.

Mistake 5: KU bench clears -- Benign, see comments above. They deserved to be ejected as per the rules. But this was not truly escalation.

Okay, you missed maybe the most important mistake in this entire fracas. If the video I saw is correct, the first actual physical contact was the next mistake and that appeared to be one or two KSU players pushing De Sousa. Honestly, making physical contact of any kind is the Maginot line. Few things will trigger an amygdala hijack like that first physical contact in a tense situation like this. The first physical contact is more egregious than the ensuing since the ensuing is often more likely amygdala related. If indeed the KSU players made the first physical contact knocking De Sousa down, this is significant. If this turns out to be the case, any player initiating contact is a candidate for the harshest penalty. I am not familiar enough with the rules to speculate on what that penalty may be. Blow hards like Vitale have spouted lifetime bans all the way to the other end of the spectrum like Jay Williams or Shannon Sharpe (thanks HE). I have been a handful of fights in my younger days and for anyone who has been in those situations, you know all too well the power of the amygdala. Your pre-frontal cortex is simply chemically not in the equation for those few seconds. If indeed, these KSU players made first contact, I sure hope that is dealt with appropriately. Were I Weber and that was the determination, I would be very clear and contrite. There is no joy in meting out punishment but it is necessary. I would not condemn these young men but I would sure make it clear that the consequences are the best opportunity to learn how to be better in the future. Afterall, that is a large part of the purpose of consequences. I may support my guys personally, but I would make sure, that my support means helping them through consequences to have the best opportunity of learning their lesson.

The next event which was probably a mistake was De Sousa responding to being attacked. If indeed he was pushed to the gorund and came up swinging, that has to be viewed in the context of all that is happening. Was it reasonable self defense? Was it amygdala and thus understandable? Yes, in the ideal world we would all have the aplomb to take a shot and stand there inertly with no response or to simply walk away. That is not how young men are wired and I literally mean wired as in chemical synapses and brain development. Heck, at 45 I was assaulted in my front yard by 12 young men at about midnight (trying to break into my house to fight my teenage son), all about 16 -18 years old. I went outside, turned to my wife to lock the front door and call the police. I then turned to the leader and pushed him as hard as I could knocking him to the ground and dared the rest to make a move. Looking back, I can't believe I did that. I am not an opposing physical speciman by any measure. My point is, that was the amygdala fight or flight and being a father and husband, flight was not an option. I was literally out of my mind for a minute or two. When you are threatened, the rules are set and the situation is somewhat defined in terms of your actions. I would be loathe to punish De Sousa too harshly for defending himself, especially given from the his viewpoint that he was surrounded and outnumbered.

One more you missed. The Love character entering the fray. De Sousa may or may not have been forced into a defensive mode somewhat justifying his responses. Love was purely in offensive mode and the aggressor. This young mans deserves as harsh a punishment and needs to have the opportunity to learn his lesson through consequences as anyone involved.

Mistake 6: SDS picks up stool - Amygdala notwithstanding, this is clearly the iconic meme of this entire episode. That is unfortunate. If indeed he dropped it of his own volition, this was part and parcel of the ensuing events following the initial attack and sort of a no harm no foul. Even if it was knocked out of his hands it is still somewhat of a no harm no foul. But we live in in 2020 when memes are worth 1000 words, nay memes are the truth and reality. That is unfortunate. It was a bad look. It was a terrible look. It was sad and heartbreaking and maddening and frustrating and about 10 other descriptors. But it is not the dominant aspect of this event in reality, only in the meme world which is reality because the media and social media will make sure it is the reality. Only the schools and the Big 12 will have a true picture of reality and that will even be clouded. Picking up the stool to my mind in and of itself, does not radically impact this episode and warrants no special additional punishment. If it is determined that De Sousa is culpable for the instigation and perpetuation that caused this and escalated this, he should get quite harsh and severe consequences. The stool should have little impact on that. By that time, the damage was either done or not.

Mistake 7: Weber punts consequences for his players -- I have little concern at this point to bash on Weber. (and believe me, I am no Weber fan). I am desperately hoping that the PTB in the two schools and the Big 12, get a comprehensive seriatim of events and look at this in a manner that truly shows the world that fairness, and righteousness with the proper amounts of stern adherence to the rules mixed with reasonable mercy and lots of humility and a commitment to eschew public relation positioning in favor of just doing the right thing prevails. I do not hope for harsher punishment for any one side or tit for tat. Just do what is right, make the calls, show that the deepest concern is balanced for helping all these young men learn through consequences while protecting the need for deterrence against future similar events.

As part of my job, I was called on to adjudicate and arbitrate numerous transgressions among employees. In virtually every one of those situations, there were strong advocates of all sides, some reasonable some not, some quite passionate, some quite vocal and much pressure brought to bear on me with threats and accusations and all the usual fare. You have to rise above it all and first, get the facts, all the facts. Understand the context of every action. Have a clear motive to do the right thing for all parties involved and commit to effectively communicating all the above. That is my prayer for this situation. Whatever consequences are meted, I pray they will be for all the right reasons with all the relevant facts, and with the proper intent.

I find it laughable that with all that’s going on in the world and this country, the Mercury writes an op-Ed on a basketball game.

Link?

RC

It's in the post by HE....where he relates his Facebook posting......very first line after “well said, Corpus”

I’m technically inept.....cannot post a link.

Thanks for the elaboration and analysis. Do you think B12 punishments were fair?

In response to WSGal- KC Star did Op-Ed today. Somewhat heavy handed! To quote:

“Then, during the melee that spilled into courtside seats, De Sousa inexplicably picked up a metal stool and held it over his head as if to hit someone “WWE-style,” as ESPN wrote. It’s not inaccurate to say he brandished a weapon. What in heaven’s name was he thinking he might do? Don’t point a gun or a chair at someone if you’re not prepared to use it.”

Well to them I say, if you want to accuse someone of what amounts to at least considering assault with a deadly (as per analogy in final sentence of paragraph) just come out and say it instead of hiding behind a double negative!

My version of a double negative:

Shaking my head and rolling my eyes.

I relate to being technically inept, Wheatie.