Bulls vs Celtics

[actuary77]

Not that I consider Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith to be THE voice of reason on anything NBA, but they did raise a very good point (imho) about the whole flagrant vs. non-flagrant issue...

If it were the other way around, i.e. Miller wacking Rondo on the head, the officials would have called that a fragrant automatically.

AGREE OR DISAGREE?

[bas2456]

Why would that change things? And would the refs really think about that?

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by actuary77

Not that I consider Charles Barkley and Kenny Smith to be THE voice of reason on anything NBA, but they did raise a very good point (imho) about the whole flagrant vs. non-flagrant issue...

If it were the other way around, i.e. Miller wacking Rondo on the head, the officials would have called that a fragrant automatically.

AGREE OR DISAGREE?

I think if Rondo was hit, landed, etc. in the same way then it would be the same. You can't really role reverse, because if you do and Miller is the one swinging at the same speed as Rondo there is going to be a heavier impact against a smaller guy, which in most cases will take rondo to the ground. You just really can't reverse the roles of these players in my opinion cause it would change impact power and all the above.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I think if Rondo was hit, landed, etc. in the same way then it would be the same. You can't really role reverse, because if you do and Miller is the one swinging at the same speed as Rondo there is going to be a heavier impact against a smaller guy, which in most cases will take rondo to the ground. You just really can't reverse the roles of these players in my opinion cause it would change impact power and all the above.

So essentially the NBA rule only takes in too account impact and not intent? And small players can take free shots at big players?

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So essentially the NBA rule only takes in too account impact and not intent? And small players can take free shots at big players?

That would be correct. We are not taught to referee intent, but just judge on whether contact is unnecessary and/or excessive in regards to Flagrant Fouls.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

That would be correct. We are not taught to referee intent, but just judge on whether contact is unnecessary and/or excessive in regards to Flagrant Fouls.

That philosophy is why I've sympathized Shaq from time-to-time. Opponents beat the sh!t out of him all the time when he was in his prime but when he got tired of it and put a hard foul on someone else it became a federal case.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

That would be correct. We are not taught to referee intent, but just judge on whether contact is unnecessary and/or excessive in regards to Flagrant Fouls.

Ben, I think it's ridiculous that the NBA rules would say Rondo can swing his arm with no chance of blocking a shot and hit Miller in the mouth and it be ruled a normal foul yet D-Wade actually elevates and contacts the ball above the rim and is called for a flagrant.

[bradfordwilkins]

Rondo's was certainly a borderline Fragrant 1 -- watching the video on YouTube it certainly looks like the contact was "unnecessary" (the definition of a Flagrant 1 at the Pro Level). The thing is, retroactively there is no value in upgrading it to a Flagrant 1 (no fines until flagrant 2)... and you're certainly not going to suspend someone for a Flagrant 1.

Likewise, Dwight should've been ejected on the spot for an elbow that makes contact above the shoulder, Flagrant 2. I believe the reason he is being suspended is because he was not ejected. If he gets ejected in the game, I think he plays Game 6.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by NBA rules

Section IV—Flagrant Foul
a. If contact committed against a player,
with or without the ball, is interpreted
to be unnecessary, a flagrant foul—
penalty (1) will be assessed.

So why is every "Hack-a-Shaq" foul not a flagrant I?

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Ben, I think it's ridiculous that the NBA rules would say Rondo can swing his arm with no chance of blocking a shot and hit Miller in the mouth and it be ruled a normal foul yet D-Wade actually elevates and contacts the ball above the rim and is called for a flagrant.

I agree, I'll preface by saying I'm a bulls fan, yet it was apparent Rondo went for his face.

JR would have called it "taking care of bidness"

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Ben, I think it's ridiculous that the NBA rules would say Rondo can swing his arm with no chance of blocking a shot and hit Miller in the mouth and it be ruled a normal foul yet D-Wade actually elevates and contacts the ball above the rim and is called for a flagrant.

I got to watch the play in its entirety and yeah I can see that being a flagrant 1 and I can also see the wade play being a common foul. Refs miss plays we all know this. They were both 2 plays with a story behind them both.

Do you think within the context of the game a Flagrant 1 should have been assessed on Rondo?

Do you think within the context of the game where Wade had just been fouled hard 2 plays previous with an altercation occurring immediately after, that there should or shouldn't have been a flagrant 1 assessed?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I got to watch the play in its entirety and yeah I can see that being a flagrant 1 and I can also see the wade play being a common foul. Refs miss plays we all know this. They were both 2 plays with a story behind them both.

Terrible thought process for officiating. Obviously more of that pro philosophy garbage. What happened to your earlier comment about officials judging the action and not the intent? The "story" behind the play would fall into that.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Do you think within the context of the game a Flagrant 1 should have been assessed on Rondo?

Yep, real officials don't care what the "context" of the game is. They simply get the play right. 1st Q or 4th Q, that's more than a common foul.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Do you think within the context of the game where Wade had just been fouled hard 2 plays previous with an altercation occurring immediately after, that there should or shouldn't have been a flagrant 1 assessed?

Yep, IMO that type of play needs to be penalized as more than a common foul. It's contact directly from behind on a break-away against an airborne and vulnerable player. The risk for injury is high.

However, it seems that the league disagrees with my view as they announced today that they have rescinded the flagrant 1 foul against Wade.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

The "complete" referee is a phenomenal playcaller, great game manager and great communicator.

What are you saying, to be successful it takes more than just running up & down the court, blowing the whistle on CC?