Bulls vs Celtics

[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?

[bradfordwilkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

Have you tried to guard Shaq? Fouling him to send him to the free-throw line seems necessary to me! lol :-P

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Rondo up to his cheap tactics again tonight.
He is being a thug, which is too bad because he is a decent player and doesn't need to resort to such. Just got a flagrant 1.
Yet again he was probably lucky to get a lesser penalty than likely deserved.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.


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.

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.

Im sorry i shouldn't have used the word "story" cause i too, believe the game should be called the same from start to finish. And my comment about judging action and not intent still holds true. if we judged intent on that play its very possible that we give Rondo a Flagrant 1. Obvious pro philosophy garbage?? That "garbage" gets plays right in the 93-97 perecentile if im not mistaken. What other "philosophy" can tout that?

It's as simple as getting the play right, huh? That easy?

you can have opinions... everybody can, but your opinion and mine don't mean anything in regards to the Wade play. The NBA doesn't have "philosophies" we have standards and rules. The rule says in order to assess a Flagrant 1 the contact has to be unnecessary and Wade's contact was not unnecessary he was attempting to make a great defensive play with which he failed to do.

So are you going to assess an intentional foul if this was in a college game? Doesn't the rule say the player has to make an attempt on the ball? if that's the case then that is what Wade did and you would not have a basis for assessing an intentional foul other than your opinion is that the airborne shooter is vulnerable and the chance of injury is high?? I actually think that's a noble thought process and thats why you should absolutely assess a foul, but by rule you're not justified in doing anything else.

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?

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

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

Are you being sarcastic? I hope so, because yes it takes way more than just running and blowing the whistle.