By now, the PBA’s decision to suspend John Amores for the entire Commissioner’s Cup following his involvement in a shooting incident has sparked outrage among fans and left many scratching their heads. In a league that has dealt with some intense controversies in the past, the PBA’s ruling on Amores feels inconsistent and, frankly, illogical compared to how the league handled past incidents involving Calvin Abueva, Mac Tallo, and Renaldo Balkman. Let’s break down the punishment hierarchy, and you’ll see why the fans have every reason to be baffled.
John Amores: A Criminal Act? No Big Deal
Let’s start with John Amores. The former Northport guard was involved in a shooting incident—not an on-court altercation or heated physical play, but a real-life criminal act in Lumban, Laguna, where Amores and his brother are now facing frustrated homicide charges. The PBA’s response? A suspension for one conference. One. Conference. Not a lifetime ban, not an indefinite suspension, but a short-term pause during which Amores won’t be able to play games. He can still join team practices, collect a minimal salary, and continue to operate as if nothing egregious happened.
This ruling doesn't just feel light; it feels out of touch with the gravity of Amores' actions. Commissioner Willie Marcial even emphasized that they’re not punishing Amores for the criminal act, leaving that to the courts. However, the PBA’s own Uniform Players Contract was supposedly violated, which should have warranted a more severe punishment.
Calvin Abueva: Indefinite Suspension for On-Court Shenanigans
Now let’s look back at Calvin Abueva’s indefinite suspension in 2019. Abueva’s infractions were committed on the hardwood—a clothesline hit on TNT import Terrence Jones and an obscene gesture to Ray Parks Jr.'s girlfriend. Abueva was suspended for over a year, missing countless games and suffering a significant financial loss. Yes, his actions were inappropriate and unprofessional, but they were committed in the heat of the moment during a game. Yet, the punishment was substantially harsher than what Amores received, even though Amores’ offense happened off the court and carried far more severe real-world consequences.
Mac Tallo: Silent Ban for Ligang Labas
Then we have Mac Tallo, who was unofficially but effectively blacklisted from the PBA for joining Ligang Labas games, a violation of league rules. Unlike Abueva, Tallo wasn’t involved in any violent act—he simply played in unauthorized leagues. His “silent ban” meant he wasn’t allowed to return to the PBA without any formal process or announcement. If playing in informal leagues can get you silently blacklisted, how does participating in a shooting incident get you just a one-conference suspension? The discrepancy in punishment here feels absurd.
Renaldo Balkman: Lifetime Ban for Choking a Teammate
Lastly, let’s revisit Renaldo Balkman’s notorious lifetime ban for choking his own teammate, Arwind Santos, during a PBA game in 2013. Balkman lost control in a competitive setting, and his violent behavior cost him his career in the Philippines, at least for a while. It wasn’t until years later that his ban was lifted after a heartfelt apology and genuine efforts to reform his image. The PBA’s message at the time was clear: this kind of behavior is intolerable. So, what kind of message does the league send now by allowing Amores back in after just one conference?
The Illogical Disconnect
The logic behind the PBA’s disciplinary actions seems increasingly fractured. While players like Abueva and Balkman faced career-altering punishments for their on-court behavior, Amores’ off-court incident, which involved firearms and could have resulted in tragic outcomes, was treated with kid gloves. The one-conference suspension feels more like a slap on the wrist than a serious consequence, and fans are rightfully questioning why this situation isn’t being addressed with the gravity it deserves.
Additionally, with Amores’ minimal allowance during his suspension, the punishment feels even lighter. It’s almost as if the league is trying to cushion the blow to avoid alienating him completely. But in doing so, they’ve alienated their fanbase instead, many of whom are left questioning whether the PBA’s disciplinary system is more about protecting players than holding them accountable.
What’s Next for the PBA?
If the PBA continues to issue penalties that seem wildly inconsistent with the nature of the offense, they risk undermining the very foundation of their rules and the trust of their audience. Fans are not just upset because of this single incident—they’re upset because they see a pattern of inconsistency in how the league enforces discipline. This could damage the league’s credibility and reputation in the long run, making it imperative that the PBA rethink how they handle controversies moving forward.
The league owes its fans an explanation—or at the very least, a more balanced approach to discipline.
Comments
Post a Comment