Draymond Green’s EXPLOSIVE Stomp Revelation: Was It Justified Retribution?

Two years after the infamous postseason stomp that rocked the NBA playoffs and sent shockwaves through the league, Draymond Green has finally pulled back the curtain on his true intentions. In a candid interview on Kai Cenat’s live stream, the Warriors’ fiery forward didn’t just revisit the notorious incident involving Domantas Sabonis; he dropped a bombshell explanation that has reignited the controversy and divided fans faster than a fast break. This wasn’t an accident, Green now claims. It was “payback.”

The Moment That Shook the Playoffs

It was Game 2 of the 2023 first-round clash between the Golden State Warriors and the Sacramento Kings. The tension was palpable, the stakes sky-high. In a now-iconic play, Sabonis hit the floor, and Green, attempting to run upcourt, ended up with his foot firmly planted on the chest of the Kings’ big man. The NBA acted swiftly, slapping Green with a Flagrant 2 foul, an ejection, and a subsequent suspension. Sabonis, despite his role in the fracas, walked away with only a technical foul, igniting a furious debate about fairness and intent. For two years, the official narrative largely centered on Green’s impulsive nature. But now, he’s offering a vastly different story.

Sabonis “Started It”: The Ankle Grab Heard ‘Round the World

Green’s revelation flips the script. According to the four-time champion, the sequence began not with his stomp, but with Sabonis’s provocative action while on the floor. “He grabbed my ankle,” Green recounted, his voice dripping with a mix of exasperation and justification. “Why is he holding onto my ankle? You gotta get him back.” Green, never one to mince words, described himself as “not the most flexible NBA star,” and when his leg was held, he “had no choice but to land his shoe somewhere.” That “somewhere,” unfortunately for Sabonis, was his chest.

Green insists there’s an “angle you never saw” – one that vindicates his action as a direct, reactive response to Sabonis’s initial grab. This isn’t just an excuse, he implies; it’s a critical piece of context that changes everything. It reframes the stomp not as an unprovoked act of aggression, but as a calculated, if volatile, response to being physically impeded.

Fans Aren’t Buying The ‘Payback’ Narrative

While Green may feel his explanation clarifies the situation, the court of public opinion remains fiercely skeptical. Social media exploded after his latest comments, with many fans immediately dismissing his justification as another classic Draymond deflection. The comments section of the very stream Green appeared on quickly filled with vitriol. “Trash can Green always got an excuse,” one user wrote, perfectly encapsulating the prevailing sentiment that Green’s history precedes him. Another mockingly echoed, “Oh. He touched me. So I cost my team because I crashed out. No one likes Steph’s backpack.”

The collective memory of Green’s past antics – the punches, the headlocks, the elbows – makes it difficult for many to accept his narrative of righteous retribution. As one fan bluntly put it, “Draymond needs to market a line of product with each one of his antics: 1. The headlock 2. The Stomp 3. The Punch 4. The Elbow 5. The etc…” The insinuation is clear: this is just another entry in a long highlight reel of questionable actions, each followed by an explanation that rarely satisfies his detractors.

The Enduring Legacy of Controversy

Green’s career has been defined as much by his defensive prowess and undeniable leadership as it has by his controversial on-court behavior. His latest “truth” about the Sabonis stomp only adds another layer to this complex legacy. He believes he was merely delivering “reactive justice,” settling a score initiated by his opponent. The NBA, at the time, saw a Flagrant 2 and a suspension. Two years later, with Green’s explosive confession, the debate rages on: Was it an act of self-preservation, a moment of retaliatory justice, or just another instance of Draymond Green crossing the line? The court of public opinion is still out, and it seems unlikely to reach a unanimous verdict anytime soon.