Sam Amick

USA TODAY Sports

Draymond Green will play in Game 4 of the Western Conference Finals on Tuesday night at Chesapeake Arena.

It took all day to reach that reality, as NBA executive vice president of basketball operations Kiki VanDeWeghe deliberated every aspect of the controversial leg kick in Game 3 that could very well have resulted in a suspension for the Golden State Warriors' All-Star forward. Instead, despite Green's right foot putting Oklahoma City Thunder big man Steven Adams on the floor after the controversial foul, his flagrant one foul was upgraded to a flagrant two and a fine of $25,000 was issued as well. Green, who also had a flagrant one foul from the first round against the Houston Rockets, is now one point away from a possible one-game suspension (four points triggers that penalty).

VanDeWeghe, who is well aware that this decision was reached with all sorts of criticism, discussed the issue at length with USA TODAY Sports.

Q: Kiki, I felt like this was one of those rare moments where a little added perspective might help the fans understand how you guys saw this thing. You have high stakes in the playoffs, and a somewhat controversial guy in Draymond in terms of the way that he plays the game, but you tell me: what was today like, and at the end of the day, what factors weighed most heavily on your mind when it comes to making this decision?

Warriors' Draymond Green not suspended for groin kick to Steven Adams

A: Right. Well, obviously these are tough calls, and they’re very difficult and they’re all different. Basically, (he) spent last night and today looking at a bunch of comparables, which were kind of all over the place. I mean we had a number of ones that nothing was called, we had Flagrant Ones and Flagrant Twos and Flagrant Twos and fines, and suspensions. I spent the day watching a bunch of film, watching comparables, talking to the referees, and the replay center referees, and we also do a thorough investigation.

We have professional investigators that conduct the investigation. They talk to the players, they talk to all the referees, including the replay officials, and they all come back and report to me. I obviously discuss it internally, and especially with referee operations, get their perspective. But at the end of the day every play is different and that’s the problem. You take into account everything. You take into account t what the referees have said. They obviously went with a flagrant one last night, and you take into account the comparables. The problem with comparables is they never tell the whole story.

Every different situation, every different play, has a different fact pattern, so you factor all that in and then you I make the best decision I can make and recommend it to (NBA Commissioner) Adam (Silver), and then he’ll sign off on it, and that’s basically (why) we had a long day today. We had a long day of going through all that. And I know that sometimes, Sam, I know it’s frustrating for people. You don’t have an instant decision, or a very quick decision, but these are big decisions. You want to do your best to do it right, and you want to make sure you exhaust all the avenues you have and investigate as much as you possibly can and be as thorough as you can, and sometimes take takes a little longer than you might like.

Q: Kiki, a lot of focus on the Dahntay Jones situation. And to hear you talk about comparables, is there perhaps a comparable that hasn’t been discussed as much that may have weighed even more heavily on your mind in terms of this kind of play not resulting in a suspension?

A: You know, I think that there were a number of them. But just to talk about the Dahntay Jones situation, I think that was basically a completely different play. That, you had somebody (who was) tussling for a rebound, and Jones brings back his hand his hand is open. And as he brings his hand back forward and makes contact with Bismack’s (Biyombo) groin area, the fist is closed. And so you have contact with a closed fist, so to me that’s a very different scenario and, to me, a different fact pattern, so it’s very different from what we’re talking about with Draymond, that I viewed as a flail that is becoming, you know, pretty common amongst our players in trying to sell calls. Draymond does it a fair amount, Westbrook does it a fair amount, and a number of other players. Unfortunately, in this particular one, Draymond’s leg connected in the same Adams groin area, the same area, as the Jones one, but everything else about the call, or the play, was really different. And you know, again, the ball was knocked out of Draymond’s hands, he went up, trying to sell a call, he flails his arm, he flails his leg, and so at that point, when the contact was made, I think we felt that something more, some additional penalty was warranted, so that’s what we did.

Q: So history is always going to be taken into account, and I wonder how you see this aspect. On the one hand, you have the situation in Game Two where Draymond connected in a similar fashion with Steven Adams. But at the same time, and this is kind of conversely, you have … video of Draymond and the fact that throwing that leg up is something that he has done for quite a while. That’s something that has been part of his repertoire. Did you factor in the game situation at all into this situation, and then also when you see a guy who has a particular tick, if you will, is that something that you end up chewing on?

A: Good question, Sam, and obviously we saw all those. Part of the research and … nobody questioned whether the first one in the prior game, or the second game, was accidental. There’s no question regarding that one. And then as far as the leg kicks go, I think that sort of speaks to what you and I were talking about a second ago, which is (that) this is a fairly common way to sell a foul. It doesn’t make it right, and obviously we take it very seriously. (But) this is a pretty big penalty. I thought that it didn’t merit a suspension, but he’s got three points now – one point away from a suspension. He also got a pretty hefty fine along with this, and so this is a serious matter and we take it very seriously. And I did.

Thunder destroy Warriors in stunning Game 3 victory

Q: You guys are constantly battling the conspiracy theory narrative, and the idea that - ‘Well, because it’s Draymond Green, an All-Star, as opposed to Dahntay Jones, a role player, that’s why they didn’t come down hard.’ In your position – and it’s not a real enviable spot to be in – how do you reconcile that when you know (the perception)? The second that the news broke on this, my timeline on Twitter was filled with people saying ‘Typical NBA, they’re going to protect the stars. It’s all about business, it’s not about basketball.’ How do you see that aspect of things, Kiki?

A: Well first of all, you can’t take that into consideration. Obviously I knew that I would be subject to some criticism in that area. I mean we knew that ahead of time. And I can’t let that effect – as best I can – I can’t let that effect my decision. You’ve got to make it on the merits of individual play, and everything, all the facts that are going on around it. So you look at that, as I said, the Dahntay Jones one, in my view, was completely different than this one. I realize that it ended the same way, with contact to the groin area. But as I told you before, a closed fist to the groin area right in front of a straightforward strike is very different than going up, getting the ball knocked out. I don’t think anybody really argues to much with the flail.

But you’ve got to be responsible for your actions, hence this guy got a pretty severe penalty. I don’t think that you can say we let him off the hook. Last game, obviously they viewed this as a Flagrant One. We had three referees in the replay center, and they all viewed it that way. We have the benefit of doing all the investigation, a very thorough investigation, a historical look, and can take that all into account. And I just felt after looking at it, studying it, and talking to all the people internally – ref ops people internally – that it warranted a more severe penalty than that.

Q: From a factual standpoint, how many people did you wind up speaking to (in the investigation)? And then (secondly), the natural question (is) that when the refs – when Scott Foster and his crew go to the tape and they talk to the replay center and they come back with a Flagrant One – I think it’s natural for people to say, ‘Why, at that point, wasn’t Flagrant Two the final verdict in the moment?’ You could almost argue that it’s an indictment of the system at that point.

A: We have professional investigators (who) talked to both players, talked to all the referees, including the replay center referee. And then they come back and report to me. I talk to the game officials myself, and then obviously I talk to all the ref ops people here. And then obviously watch all the different tape and what not that we already talked about. But to me, what the game officials don’t have is they don’t have the luxury of watching film a lot of the night, film a lot of today, and then eight or so hours or whatever it is that I had to poll the people who I can talk to. Again, I think that they made the decision that they made and my job is to review it.

And then after doing all of that, in a thorough investigation, I decided that – ‘Hey look, this needed a more severe penalty.’ So that’s what happened.

Q: In the general sense, Kiki, is it discouraging at all for you during these playoffs where – and we all know that the mantra of officiating in general is that they would love nothing more than to not be the story and to be able to call the game and have the fans, and the players, and the coaches, feel like the game was called fine and we had good competition – but we’ve seen a lot of situations in these playoffs where that has not been the case. Is that discouraging to you at all – especially in the light of the fact that these guys are, on balance, getting about 87 or 88% right (including non-calls) when it comes to the calls, but the narrative is pretty tough in these playoffs?

Steven Adams is the breakout player of the playoffs

A: Sure, but this is intense competition, and people care very deeply about it. The flow of the game makes it fun to watch, but it’s the passion that makes this game great. That’s also what makes it very, very difficult to referee – both those things. And so the referees have a very difficult job.

As you said, they get 95 or 96% of the calls they make right…when they’re blowing the whistle. And when they’re all in totality, all the non-calls and things like that…they’re in the 86 or 87% (range). The majority of these games, and the majority of the game itself, is refereed very well. Some of these calls are so physical, and the bodies are coming together very quickly, and again the game is flowing up and down, there’s a lot of passion, tempers are high, and that’s, again, what makes the play great, and the fans, and the coaches, and everybody so excited. But it makes it so difficult to referee, and it’s amazing to me that they actually get so many right. And then obviously what half the fans are going to remember is the call that went against them, or the mistake that was made. The one out of 10 – or a little bit less than that - that these guys may get wrong. They get so much right.

Again, I know these guys all personally. They’re all really competitive. They’re good at their job. They’re the best in the world at this. I don’t think anybody questions that. And it is, at times, where you want to see them get the credit they’re due (but) I understand. Players have the same problem in some respects. The stars can have a tremendous game, and then miss one shot at a critical time and then that’s what everyone remembers. I understand that part of the equation.

To me, these guys do a tremendous job. It’s a tough job, obviously, and these particular calls are difficult. I think we go into it realizing that you’re not going to make everybody happy, but what you have to do is to take all the facts into consideration, and make the best decision that you possibly can make in these types of situations knowing that it may not be perfect. You’re going to make some people unhappy. You knew what people may say, but you have to sort of put that out of your mind and say, ‘OK, let me look at the facts of this thing and let me do my best investigation and come out with the best decision regardless of time of game, or player, or anything else. You try to apply the rules as equally as you can.’