Bulls vs Celtics

[bas2456]

End of the Bulls/Celtics game.

Brad Miller gets fouled going to the rim. Foul draws blood. Bulls coach wanted a flagrant. Would the flagrant be warranted? I wouldn't think so, but what do you think?

Second question is that while Miller was trying to get the blood stopped, the announcers were talking about how that if Miller had to come out, the opposing coach would get to choose who shot the free throws. Is this correct? Did anyone else hear this?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bas2456

End of the Bulls/Celtics game.

Brad Miller gets fouled going to the rim. Foul draws blood. Bulls coach wanted a flagrant. Would the flagrant be warranted? I wouldn't think so, but what do you think?

Second question is that while Miller was trying to get the blood stopped, the announcers were talking about how that if Miller had to come out, the opposing coach would get to choose who shot the free throws. Is this correct? Did anyone else hear this?

Remember that they are using NBA terminology and rules.

Flagrant in the NBA doesn't have the same meaning as flagrant under NCAA and NFHS rules.

Yes, UNDER NBA RULES the fouled player must attempt his FTs in the NBA or he can't participate any further in the contest. If he needs to be replaced, the opposing coach selects someone from the team's bench to attempt the FTs.

[DonInKansas]

Play at the buzzer to win, he would have had to balled a fist and knocked Miller out to get a flagrant.

[bas2456]

Crazy NBA

[Nevadaref]

In the future, just use this link:http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_index.html

RULE 9, Section II-Shooting of Free Throw
a. The free throw(s) awarded because of a personal foul shall be attempted by the offended player.
EXCEPTIONS:
(1) If the offended player is injured or is ejected from the game and cannot attempt the awarded free throw(s), the opposing coach shall select, from his opponent's bench, the player who will replace the injured player. That player will attempt the free throw(s) and the injured player will not be permitted to re-enter the game. The substitute must remain in the game until the next dead ball.

[btaylor64]

Originally Posted by bas2456

End of the Bulls/Celtics game.

Brad Miller gets fouled going to the rim. Foul draws blood. Bulls coach wanted a flagrant. Would the flagrant be warranted? I wouldn't think so, but what do you think?

Second question is that while Miller was trying to get the blood stopped, the announcers were talking about how that if Miller had to come out, the opposing coach would get to choose who shot the free throws. Is this correct? Did anyone else hear this?

The foul was not unnecessary contact therefore no Flagrant. That is what we ask ourselves when assessing a Flagrant Foul penalty 1.

Nevada is right about Miller being injured as were the broadcasters. If Miller would have been unable to shoot his FTs he would not have been allowed to return to the game and the opposing coach would select the shooter from the bench.

Had they called a Flagrant 1 and the player is injured, the coach of the injured player would get to choose from the 4 remaining players on the floor and had it been a Flagrant 2 the coach could choose any player to shoot the FTs.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bas2456

End of the Bulls/Celtics game.

Brad Miller gets fouled going to the rim. Foul draws blood. Bulls coach wanted a flagrant. Would the flagrant be warranted? I wouldn't think so, but what do you think?

I have no problem with it not being deemed a flagrant foul as long as it wouldn't be a flagrant in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters also.

I do believe Dwight Howard should be sitting for Game 6 against Philly.

[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?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by DonInKansas

Play at the buzzer to win, he would have had to balled a fist and knocked Miller out to get a flagrant.

Why? On a play at the buzzer, whether it's flagrant or not wouldn't matter because the ball isn't going to be awarded for a throw-in after the FTs.

Originally Posted by btaylor64

The foul was not unnecessary contact therefore no Flagrant.

I think that's very debatable.

[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?

[refguy]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Why? On a play at the buzzer, whether it's flagrant or not wouldn't matter because the ball isn't going to be awarded for a throw-in after the FTs.


I think that's very debatable.

Wrong. There was 2.0 seconds remaining after the foul and on a flagrant, Chicago would have gotten the throw-in with a chance to win the game regardless of the results of Miller's free throws.

[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.

[ILRef80]

I think it should have been a flagrant. Rondo did not attempt a play on the ball and instead gave Miller a hard smack to the face. In one of my games, I'm deeming that a flagrant. The NBA may have a different definition though.