<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eg-NrJY3TIs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That wasn't going to be an offensive foul even without Fisher using his forearm.

And that is only because he was moving/chucking/lunging toward James at the time of contact. Otherwise, he had LGP. If he had merely limited his movement to the side or backwards, it could have been a charge (at least by NCAA and NFHS rules).

Certainly not flagrant, from my couch, and an easy block given Fisher's forward lunge at contact.

I absolutely love how he shoots his arms straight into the air as the whistle is blown. Classic.

Yep, up in the air, not contacting LBJ, which means there was no justification for a FF1 based on him "chucking"

Only if you are deciding to redefine what has always been accepted as the definition of chucking, which is using your arms and extended them INTO an opponent.

What Fischer did is a body bump.

Semantics....I was merely referring to the element of the play where he emphasized and unnecessarily increased the magnitude of impact by throwing, chucking, lunging, or whatever verb you think fits, in to James. I don't limit my definition of chucking to just the arms. I don't think it was flagrant level, but he did basically do what I described. Much harder, and it should have been flagrant.

I do not think that was a FF, but I do not think it was a charge either. That is no different than a player in football running at you and then you go and make contact with them to prevent their movement. It is a "block" by the definition in football and certainly was not a legal position in basketball. I think the FF was called because the contact was initiated by Fisher and it was clear he was not playing any basketball but trying to throw his body into LBJ.

Peace

Thanks for the memories Derek
 

Everyone seems to be missing the point here. The arm movement definitely resulted from the contact, and it definitely gave the "appearance" of unneccessary contact, otherwise it would have been a straight up charge. So the call was justifiable. No problem from me on that.

But I digress. This boils down to two things.

Number one, Derek gave a clinic on how the rest of OKC should have been defending LaBron the whole series, instead of like a bunch of scared sissy's. Until that play, I was wondering why OKC didn't just roll out a red carpet for LaBron to roll up the lane at will.

Number two, the NBA is becoming sissyfied. I'm not being judgemental, but it's just a fact. If anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about, go look at some youtube footage from the great series of the 80,'s and 90's - Lakers, Detroit, Boston, New York, Indiana, Utah, Chicago. NOBODY got a free pass through the lane. If you weren't quick enough - STAY OUT. Otherwise, expect a good clean hard foul, or finding someone in your way.

Thank you Darek for reminding everyone how defense is supposed to be played. Take note for next year OKC.

No, it would have still be a defensive foul on Fisher even without the arms.

No, that is a horrible game that you desire. Every fan wants their team to lay down hard, physical defenses but want the other team's player tossed when they do the same thing. If you want "professional" wresting or MMA, go watch that. A good clean hard foul was not really clean and was not really good, it was just hard and a foul. The NBA (the owners, the players, the coaches, just about everyone) wants their players to survive for another day an not fear major injuries. They want their players to be able to walk when they're 50.

Your use of the word, "sissyfied" is a very subjective characterization and not any more of a fact than anything I could be subjective about as well. And who cares about what happen in the 80s and 90s. In NCAA games people want players thrown out for that kind of stuff all the time. The league in many cases were seen more of "thug" game and not fundamental even back then and instead of being like Hockey, the NBA wants everyone to enjoy their game. Hockey and football have done many things to take out very cheap shots or things that have little to do with actual play. You might not like it, but these changes were not made for you. Not many people feel that these kinds of plays we used to see are OK anymore or you would not see the rules to almost wipe out fighting and other actions all together.

Peace

First, Fisher's play would've/should've been a foul on him even his his arms didn't come up since he was moving forward at the time of contact.

Second...do you really want to go back to the NBA of the 90s (I give the 80s a pass because teams could score)? The NBA of the 90s led to the NCAAs of the 90s and 00s, which led to stuff like this...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bM816fpnPmw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

...and articles like this...

NCAA's John Adams wants to clean up rough play in college hoops - The Bonus - SI.com

The game was not and never has been meant to be played this way. Being aggressive is one thing. Being physical is where it becomes football in shorts.

Fans are so funny.

First off Al, arms/forearm notwithstanding, the play is a blocking foul regardless. That wasn't a charge at any level of play.

I always love it when people talk about today's sports being "pussifed"...for the NBA the first example always use to illustrate this is when Kurt Rambis was clothslined by Kevin McHale and wasn't ejected from the game.

If this is true....

Then this cannot be true:

Fortunately, it's not true, and the call was justifiable.

And while I don't think I would have called an intentional (or FF1 in NCAA/NBA rules), I don't think this is even close to the "worst flagrant call ever."