Flagrant Foul

[Obstructed_View]

League office, Steve Javie, LJ pay attention here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRHE_dgQelU

[weebo]

You could even argue that was a lot more violent that Manu on Allen.

[100%duncan]

If you are saying this is a flagrant, it's not.

But if you are protecting Manu's foul, then welcome to the club. :lol

[Whisky Dog]

Hmm looks identical to me.

You can say the league hates the Spurs far more than the Pacers... Or that the ref in our game was instructed to keep it as close as possible. Probably both, but on that night the Spurs overcame

Such bullshit how this game is officiated at the highest level. It is a black eye and diminishes what the league could be if it was run correctly.

[Obstructed_View]

If you are saying this is a flagrant, it's not.

But if you are protecting Manu's foul, then welcome to the club. :lol

Manu's foul was allowed to stand by the league office, Steve Javie said it was a flagrant because of the contact, not the reaction, and LJ said it's a flagrant foul 100 out of 100 times in the regular season.

[weebo]

I'd like to hear Steve Javie's take on this one and why a flagrant wasn't called on Hibbert.

[Obstructed_View]

I'd like to hear Steve Javie's take on this one and why a flagrant wasn't called on Hibbert.

I just want to know why the Spurs let Hibbert go. They could have at least done a sign-and-trade.

[weebo]

I just want to know why the Spurs let Hibbert go. They could have at least done a sign-and-trade.

Cuz we kept Bonner...you know to spread the floor.

[Dex]

Kerr said it. Lebron didn't writhe around on the floor like a little bitch, thus no flagrant.

[TampaDude]

Kerr said it. Lebron didn't writhe around on the floor like a little bitch, thus no flagrant.

^ this

Tony Allen should be embarrassed. I know you gotta do whatever you can to win, but that was a bitch move.

Spurs in 5 regardless.

[Dex]

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/773320119.gif?1369233174

[look_at_g_shred]

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/773320119.gif?1369233174

:lmao

[DBMethos]

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/773320119.gif?1369233174

:clap

[SA210]

:lol you forgot Manny

[Embedded]

roflmfao!!!!

[Obstructed_View]

:lol you forgot Manny

Manny's got too many fucking problems to list. He thinks Manu's to blame for 2006. Lost cause.

[Obstructed_View]

Kerr said it. Lebron didn't writhe around on the floor like a little bitch, thus no flagrant.

I didn't see the game, but right at the end it sounds like Kerr starts to give Phony Allen credit for tricking the refs. Only took a short time in the Suns organization to disintegrate his testicles.

[polandprzem]

Ask ChumpDumper he knows best

[Old School 44]

Same exact play imho. If Ginobili's is flagrant so is this foul on Lebron. And really, if the definition Javie gave is correct, Shaq and DHoward have multiple flagrants against them that were never called. I'm not a fan of either, but bigger, stronger players get shafted in this regard.

[polandprzem]

Same exact play imho. If Ginobili's is flagrant so is this foul on Lebron. And really, if the definition Javie gave is correct, Shaq and DHoward have multiple flagrants against them that were never called. I'm not a fan of either, but bigger, stronger players get shafted in this regard.
No harm no foul

But it's strange they did not called it a flagrant since it's lebron and after Gino foul was discussed

[jbspurs]

I just want to know why the Spurs let Hibbert go. They could have at least done a sign-and-trade.


:lol:rollin

[Budkin]

It's because the Spurs are dirty!

[ploto]

Do you really expect all refs to call games the same? We know they do not.

[tp2021]

Do you really expect all refs to call games the same? We know they do not.

[spursince#99]

Do you really expect all refs to call games the same? We know they do not.


WTF? This makes no sense. There's a rule book that EVERY referee should refer to in situations like these so your point is almost idiotic.

[Whisky Dog]

Do you really expect all refs to call games the same? We know they do not.

And that is 100% the problem. I know that if this same crew were doing the Spurs game they would have called a flagrant on Manu. The NBA refs games according to who's playing and the circumstances.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Heat were down 4 with under a minute to play if that exact same foul would have been called a flagrant. There's so much impirical evident at this point it's foolish to claim otherwise.

[yaicu2]

:lmao :lmao



http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/773320119.gif?1369233174

[yaicu2]

Is there anyway to make that .gif into a youtube video. That's great stuff. It needs to go viral!!

[ploto]

WTF? This makes no sense. There's a rule book that EVERY referee should refer to in situations like these so your point is almost idiotic.

Flagrant foul rules are subjective. What constitutes "unnecessary?"

[2centsworth]

100% hahahaha


seen that play million times without a
flagrant called

[Darius McCrary]

Only difference i can see is the Manu play was two players running the length of the court, while this play was two players reacting in a half court situation.

[ElNono]

refs are not above making mistakes. we won, time to move on.

[spurspokesman]

The league hates the spurs. Point blank, whats good for the geese is not good for the gander.

[quentin_compson]

I don't think that the flagrant against Manu was anything close to a blatant mistake. I believe that he wanted to make a play on the ball, but he was too far behind to get there in time and ended up dragging Allen down (and on the arm that wasn't the ballhandling one as well). I guess it's justifiable to classify that as "unnecessary contact". And comparing the play to similar ones (or ones some might think to be similar) will only get you so far because a term like "unnecessary contact" will always leave room for interpretation.

[timtonymanurich]

LOVE

THE

PHONY

ALLEN

GIF!!

FWWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA H!!!!!!!

AMAZING. EPIC. INCREDIBLE. Buy that man a STEAK and KING CRAB dinner.

[Cry Havoc]

Hmm looks identical to me.

You can say the league hates the Spurs far more than the Pacers... Or that the ref in our game was instructed to keep it as close as possible. Probably both, but on that night the Spurs overcame

Such bullshit how this game is officiated at the highest level. It is a black eye and diminishes what the league could be if it was run correctly.

Meh. We got some calls in the first half of that game. I thought the officials in Game 2 were poor and inconsistent but somewhat even.

[Fabbs]

I don't think that the flagrant against Manu was anything close to a blatant mistake. I believe that he wanted to make a play on the ball, but he was too far behind to get there in time and ended up dragging Allen down (and on the arm that wasn't the ballhandling one as well). I guess it's justifiable to classify that as "unnecessary contact". And comparing the play to similar ones (or ones some might think to be similar) will only get you so far because a term like "unnecessary contact" will always leave room for interpretation.
Manu held on and pulled for too long.
Flagrant is the correct call.

[Andthentherewas21]

Flagrant foul rules are subjective. What constitutes "unnecessary?"

Technically any "foul" has unnecessary contact or else it wouldn't be called a foul. By the letter of the rule almost anything can be a flagrant foul, however the spirit of the rule was to punish for particularly dangerous or egregious fouls. Now what constitutes that can be subjective and therefore result in different rulings, but the differences in calls, particularly as they occurred in back to back games undermines the credibility of the NBA and its referees if there is no standard for the ruling(i.e. justification for each of the calls that can withstand scrutiny).

On a side note, although I understand the sentiment praising Allen for trying to do everything to win, its moronic for the announcers and everyone else associated with promoting the sport to do so. Think about it, hes willfully undermining the rules and breaking them to his (and his team's) advantage in defiance of the integrity of the sport. That would be like someone breaking into your house, stealing your shit, and then the cops rolling up and saying "kudos to this guy, he broke the law and got away with it. Good for him". You don't praise someone for shitting on the rules and duping the system.

[Whisky Dog]

Meh. We got some calls in the first half of that game. I thought the officials in Game 2 were poor and inconsistent but somewhat even.

Exactly... We got calls in the 1st half when the game wasn't on the line yet. Once the 3rd quarter hit and Memphis was in jeopardy of getting blown out again the phantom whistles started and the same or more contact wasn't called on the other end. If it just happened once or twice it's be no big deal, but it's a pattern that happens over and over now for years. It's not just the Spurs... it happens in many series every year. For example, the mavs were beneficial against the Spurs in 2006 then were screwed by it in the finals that same year. How come there isn't this controversy and evidence in other professional sports?

[easjer]

Look, I think the flagrant call was bullshit and I think the officials are generally shit and there is not enough transparent accountability or consistency in the league. I think Stern hates the Spurs, and I think the officiating was really off in game 2, but to claim that the officiating was a-purpose and/or ordered by the league in order to handicap the Spurs is silly. Here is why: the numbers for game 1 were out. Spurs/Memphis was even lower than other Spurs/opponent playoff matches. That generally has to be attributable to the small-market, far less glamorous Memphis.

While I fully expect the Heat to rep the East in the Finals, if you think there is a vast conspiracy afoot, then you are foolish to think that Stern wants any piece of a Memphis/Indy final. He's got more to sell with Spurs and far more hope of entertaining offense with the Spurs and his hatred of SA notwithstanding, the Spurs are a better draw from the West than Memphis. If anything, he should be hoping for them, because this WCF is nearly his worst nightmare.

The officials blew multiple calls in game 2 and were terribly inconsistent. The end. It's shit (and a little surprising, tbh) that a similar foul wasn't called a flagrant the very next night, but this is nothing new, y'all. Until we install robot refs, there will be simple human error and the fact there is an element of judgment involved means that you will not be consistent across the league, even if you were to use the same refs every game.

[Whisky Dog]

Meh, it's an excuse. The NFL and MLB have much much much more consistent officiating in the playoffs with their games often times just as difficult or more difficult to officiate with weather conditions and a matter of centimeters often times to judge. The NBA officials ref differently based on circumstances and it's extremely obvious. If anyone wants to be obtuse to that then by all means carry on.

[TJastal]

Ask ChumpDumper he knows best

Bitch will avoid this thread like a welfare ho' avoids a job fair.

[I. Hustle]

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/files/2013/05/tony-allen.gif

[2centsworth]

What's unsurprising is that we get an almost identical foul the very next day. There are literally hundreds of those types of hard fouls throughout the season.

[TJastal]

Oh... btw ..my 2 cents

Mahinmi uses a lot of excessive force in this play ... where he was standing he could have simply wrapped up James' arms to prevent him getting a shot up at the basket.... instead forcefully throws him down to the ground. Manu otoh appears to grab the wrist and hold.. even pulling away after Allen hits the floor to show there was no excessiveness or intent on his part to hurt him.

[TJastal]

Manu's foul was allowed to stand by the league office, Steve Javie said it was a flagrant because of the contact, not the reaction, and LJ said it's a flagrant foul 100 out of 100 times in the regular season.

Javie is full of shit and probably parroting Stern's agenda to avoid getting Donahue'd.

[ploto]

Once the 3rd quarter hit and Memphis was in jeopardy of getting blown out again the phantom whistles started and the same or more contact wasn't called on the other end. If it just happened once or twice it's be no big deal, but it's a pattern that happens over and over now for years.

Could not GS fans claim the same about game 1?

[Aztecfan03]

Oh... btw ..my 2 cents

Mahinmi uses a lot of excessive force in this play ... where he was standing he could have simply wrapped up James' arms to prevent him getting a shot up at the basket.... instead forcefully throws him down to the ground. Manu otoh appears to grab the wrist and hold.. even pulling away after Allen hits the floor to show there was no excessiveness or intent on his part to hurt him.

I think manu used more force tbh.

[Mel_13]

Could not GS fans claim the same about game 1?

Don't think so.

4th quarter FTA in Game 1:

GS: 8
SA: 7

[manufan10]

Meh. We got some calls in the first half of that game. I thought the officials in Game 2 were poor and inconsistent but somewhat even.

This.

[FromWayDowntown]

I actually suspect that Tony Brothers (the official who called the foul) probably was reluctant to call a flagrant on the play in Miami last night because of the controversy about the call on Manu the night before.

As to the Manu call: I think it was such an odd situation because at the moment of the call, neither Bill Kennedy nor Bill Spooner (the two officials who were closest to the play when it occurred; Kennedy was in front of the Spurs bench and about even with the play and Spooner was on the other sideline and slightly behind it) indicated a flagrant foul instantly. For Javie's rationalization of the call being correct without Allen's theatrics, it sure looked to me like Spooner (who was first to the play) saw the aftermath and then looked to Kennedy with the idea that it might be called a flagrant. Foster (the crew chief) was trailing the entire play and approached the others and decided to review. My understanding of the replay rules (http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Instant-Replay-Situations.pdf) is that they can look at the replay only if they call it a flagrant on the floor; it seemed almost like Spooner and Kennedy weren't sure and decided to call it a flagrant to allow review.

Once they did that, however, the burden for changing the call required clear and conclusive proof that the play was not a flagrant foul and, as Javie's analysis suggests, that burden was not going to be met with that video, which meant that the call -- by letter of the law -- had to stand.

I think it suggests that the league should change the replay rules (again, my bad if I've misunderstood them) to permit the play to be called a common foul and give officials discretion in limited late game situations to look at video to confirm that call with the burden being greater to upgrade the foul than to downgrade it. But if you want to have a fairly objective reason for the difference in the calls, I think it lies in the standards for going to replay on flagrant fouls and the burdens that must be met to reverse calls by replay.

[easjer]

Meh, it's an excuse. The NFL and MLB have much much much more consistent officiating in the playoffs with their games often times just as difficult or more difficult to officiate with weather conditions and a matter of centimeters often times to judge. The NBA officials ref differently based on circumstances and it's extremely obvious. If anyone wants to be obtuse to that then by all means carry on.

I do not disagree with your assessment. There should be a great deal more consistency across the league. But I also know that it is never going to be infallible, even if the same crew officiated every game, because of the subjective nature of certain calls, like a flagrant foul and variety of humanity.

And additionally, the great conspiracy against the Spurs doesn't hold up in this particular case for the reason cited above (there is actually a worse alternative ratings/talent wise to the Spurs in play) and because it's harder to prove your argument - which I generally agree with - when Mahinmi put the hard foul on LeBron. By the common officiating conspiracy theories, that should have been an automatic flagrant because it was agains the pre-eminent superstar of the league. But in this instance, it wasn't, which simply proves that officiating is frequently inconsistent, and there, we agree, friend.

[TJastal]

I think manu used more force tbh.

Right...and you were probably sobbing and convulsing in horror while Allen was rolling around on the ground trying to figure out what part of his head he should be holding too..hope you're ok after that traumatic experience bro.

[easjer]

I actually suspect that Tony Brothers (the official who called the foul) probably was reluctant to call a flagrant on the play in Miami last night because of the controversy about the call on Manu the night before.

As to the Manu call: I think it was such an odd situation because at the moment of the call, neither Bill Kennedy nor Bill Spooner (the two officials who were closest to the play when it occurred; Kennedy was in front of the Spurs bench and about even with the play and Spooner was on the other sideline and slightly behind it) indicated a flagrant foul instantly. For Javie's rationalization of the call being correct without Allen's theatrics, it sure looked to me like Spooner (who was first to the play) saw the aftermath and then looked to Kennedy with the idea that it might be called a flagrant. Foster (the crew chief) was trailing the entire play and approached the others and decided to review. My understanding of the replay rules (http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Instant-Replay-Situations.pdf) is that they can look at the replay only if they call it a flagrant on the floor; it seemed almost like Spooner and Kennedy weren't sure and decided to call it a flagrant to allow review.

Once they did that, however, the burden for changing the call required clear and conclusive proof that the play was not a flagrant foul and, as Javie's analysis suggests, that burden was not going to be met with that video, which meant that the call -- by letter of the law -- had to stand.

I think it suggests that the league should change the replay rules (again, my bad if I've misunderstood them) to permit the play to be called a common foul and give officials discretion in limited late game situations to look at video to confirm that call with the burden being greater to upgrade the foul than to downgrade it. But if you want to have a fairly objective reason for the difference in the calls, I think it lies in the standards for going to replay on flagrant fouls and the burdens that must be met to reverse calls by replay.

Very interesting. I wondered what your take was on it.

But more plainly, leaving aside your proposed theory - do you think that foul was a flagrant foul?

[Obstructed_View]

Manu's intent was to stop Phony Allen from scoring an easy layup. He did that. His contact was the minimum necessary to prevent the basket. Therefore it doesn't meet the "unnecessary" criteria. There's no rule that states he's required to wrap up his opponent to prevent him from falling awkwardly.

[Obstructed_View]

I actually suspect that Tony Brothers (the official who called the foul) probably was reluctant to call a flagrant on the play in Miami last night because of the controversy about the call on Manu the night before.

As to the Manu call: I think it was such an odd situation because at the moment of the call, neither Bill Kennedy nor Bill Spooner (the two officials who were closest to the play when it occurred; Kennedy was in front of the Spurs bench and about even with the play and Spooner was on the other sideline and slightly behind it) indicated a flagrant foul instantly. For Javie's rationalization of the call being correct without Allen's theatrics, it sure looked to me like Spooner (who was first to the play) saw the aftermath and then looked to Kennedy with the idea that it might be called a flagrant. Foster (the crew chief) was trailing the entire play and approached the others and decided to review. My understanding of the replay rules (http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Instant-Replay-Situations.pdf) is that they can look at the replay only if they call it a flagrant on the floor; it seemed almost like Spooner and Kennedy weren't sure and decided to call it a flagrant to allow review.

Once they did that, however, the burden for changing the call required clear and conclusive proof that the play was not a flagrant foul and, as Javie's analysis suggests, that burden was not going to be met with that video, which meant that the call -- by letter of the law -- had to stand.

I think it suggests that the league should change the replay rules (again, my bad if I've misunderstood them) to permit the play to be called a common foul and give officials discretion in limited late game situations to look at video to confirm that call with the burden being greater to upgrade the foul than to downgrade it. But if you want to have a fairly objective reason for the difference in the calls, I think it lies in the standards for going to replay on flagrant fouls and the burdens that must be met to reverse calls by replay.

Excellent take. Though one might think Tony Brothers would side with his peeps like Steve Javie did. If it were really such a no-brainer call as Javie stated, I was wondering why nobody on the floor immediately called it a flagrant.

The difference between this and the second-worst flagrant call ever, the one where Stackhouse didn't even foul Joe Johnson and he hit his face on the floor trying to hang on the rim, is that the refs back then didn't have the benefit of replay.

[peacemaker885]

I find it interesting that the foul came from Ian Mahinmi - ex Spur

[Obstructed_View]

I find it interesting that the foul came from Ian Mahinmi - ex Spur

You're the first person in history to be surprised at a foul coming from Ian Mahinmi tbh.

[FromWayDowntown]

Very interesting. I wondered what your take was on it.

But more plainly, leaving aside your proposed theory - do you think that foul was a flagrant foul?

I didn't think it was a flagrant foul in the moment and I don't think it was a flagrant foul now, either. Of the two ways that play has been called in the last two days, I think the way it was handled in Miami was the more appropriate way, particularly in a game this late in the playoffs.

[FromWayDowntown]

Of course, I'm a Spurs fan. Had the situation been exactly the converse, I'm not sure that I would have been completely content with a common foul being called on Allen trying to keep Manu from scoring.

Curiously, though, I think that had the situation been reversed, the officials likely would have started with the assumption that Manu had flopped and wouldn't have considered a flagrant call in that circumstance.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'd also add that Game 2 is testament to my long-held view that no matter how egregious the officiating might seem in a given circumstance, a team can play well enough to overcome it and win a playoff game. That's what great teams do.

[easjer]

Damn it all, FWD, I keep trying to like your posts. Clearly spend too much time on FB. But a giant 'yes' to all of them.

[Cry Havoc]

I actually suspect that Tony Brothers (the official who called the foul) probably was reluctant to call a flagrant on the play in Miami last night because of the controversy about the call on Manu the night before.

Personally, I find it absolutely absurd that NBA officials will change a call that's made in the middle of a game because of controversy. So basically if enough people make noise, they can throw out the rule book or at least the standard of consistency that a given crowd is treated to? Shouldn't a foul be a foul (and by extension, a flagrant a flagrant) regardless of what the sports writers and analysts bicker and moan about?

Those fouls could not have been more similar, and yet one night it's a flagrant and the next night it's not. Both games ended up going to OT, so they ended up being extremely important calls as well.

[ChumpDumper]

Only difference i can see is the Manu play was two players running the length of the court, while this play was two players reacting in a half court situation.NO!

It's the exact same cockadoody play!

[Cry Havoc]

NO!

It's the exact same cockadoody play!

If that's the case though, then you start having to draw lines between where a player is on the court and how fast they're running as to whether or not it's a flagrant foul. That could get dicey pretty quickly.

[ChumpDumper]

If that's the case though, then you start having to draw lines between where a player is on the court and how fast they're running as to whether or not it's a flagrant foul.They did. Also didn't look like Lebron was upended as much .

In before the ad hominems from others.

Oh, too late already.

[Chinook]

I actually suspect that Tony Brothers (the official who called the foul) probably was reluctant to call a flagrant on the play in Miami last night because of the controversy about the call on Manu the night before.

As to the Manu call: I think it was such an odd situation because at the moment of the call, neither Bill Kennedy nor Bill Spooner (the two officials who were closest to the play when it occurred; Kennedy was in front of the Spurs bench and about even with the play and Spooner was on the other sideline and slightly behind it) indicated a flagrant foul instantly. For Javie's rationalization of the call being correct without Allen's theatrics, it sure looked to me like Spooner (who was first to the play) saw the aftermath and then looked to Kennedy with the idea that it might be called a flagrant. Foster (the crew chief) was trailing the entire play and approached the others and decided to review. My understanding of the replay rules (http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/mediacentral/NBA-Instant-Replay-Situations.pdf) is that they can look at the replay only if they call it a flagrant on the floor; it seemed almost like Spooner and Kennedy weren't sure and decided to call it a flagrant to allow review.

Once they did that, however, the burden for changing the call required clear and conclusive proof that the play was not a flagrant foul and, as Javie's analysis suggests, that burden was not going to be met with that video, which meant that the call -- by letter of the law -- had to stand.

I think it suggests that the league should change the replay rules (again, my bad if I've misunderstood them) to permit the play to be called a common foul and give officials discretion in limited late game situations to look at video to confirm that call with the burden being greater to upgrade the foul than to downgrade it. But if you want to have a fairly objective reason for the difference in the calls, I think it lies in the standards for going to replay on flagrant fouls and the burdens that must be met to reverse calls by replay.

Excellent take.

I think this controversy might make refs less likely to call flagrants against the Spurs but more like like to call them against Memphis. Refs are people, too, and more than just being fallible, they don't want to seem incompetent or unscrupulous. That's why you see a lot of "make-up" calls. They also tend to calls fouls to try to prevent future behavior, such as giving out some techs to keep the game from getting too physical. Allen showed the refs up be acting so obviously (to the cameras) that it made them seem incompetent or biased even if flagrant was technically warranted. Even though it wasn't a flop, I don't think officials take kindly to Allen's behavior (he may as well have winked to the crowd afterwards) and they will probably show some bias against him next game.

As far as what happened with the refs Tuesday, I think that's something we see in a lot of sports. Officials are taught to call a foul in ambiguous situations, because phantom calls are usually seen better in hindsight than egregiousness no-calls. The NBA has that unwritten "play on in close games during crunch time" rule, but not about something like this. I can see why they erred on the side of caution and assigned the flagrant, but I totally agree that this is a poor way to handle situations if they're going to treat their caution as the null in those situations. We see this all the time in the NFL.

[Fabbs]

I'd also add that Game 2 is testament to my long-held view that no matter how egregious the officiating might seem in a given circumstance, a team can play well enough to overcome it and win a playoff game. That's what great teams do.
And a Screwed Over Team also oftentimes cannot overcome the riggin and thereby can be farked over.

Notorious case in point is famous Kings-Lakers Game 6. Sure the Kings could have still won. But they were completely farked by the refs.

I say it's arrogant to assume that the reffing should never be used as an "*excuse*". (Not you being arrogant FWD, read on).
How so? It's assuming Team Screweds talent level is soo much better then Pampered Teams (Lakers, OKC Game 6 etc) that the rigged reffing can and should be overcome.
Well, for instance that Fakers team. Altho the Kings were clearly better, it's not like the Lakers sucked. They had Prime Shaq, Kobitch as a solid 2nd fiddle even without rigged reffing (and it was rigged, remeber the elbow to Bibby called as Bibby attacking Kobme with his jaw :lol ), Bob Horry the greatest career playoff role player in history. So to say the Kings should have overcome the riggin is too much. (And you did not say this per say FromWayDowntown, I'm just giving an example.)

I agree that teams oftentimes can overcome a crappy ref job. But not always.

[cheguevara]

I'd also add that Game 2 is testament to my long-held view that no matter how egregious the officiating might seem in a given circumstance, a team can play well enough to overcome it and win a playoff game. That's what great teams do.

this makes no sense. so because the Grizz were dead tired and have no superstar to close games out, therefore we must conclude every ref favored game is winnable :rolleyes

[ploto]

Don't think so.

4th quarter FTA in Game 1:

GS: 8
SA: 7
Those numbers mean nothing by themselves and you know it.

[Mel_13]

Those numbers mean nothing by themselves and you know it.

they mean something when stated in contradiction to your unfounded theory.

You asserted that the Spurs had some assistance form the refs in Game 1 of the last series that is similar to the favorable whistle received by Memphis in the second half of Game 2. The FTA advantage that Memphis enjoyed is obvious. No such advantage was enjoyed by the Spurs.

If you're going to make such an assertion, you should be able to point to some facts to support it. You didn't.

[Obstructed_View]

this makes no sense. so because the Grizz were dead tired and have no superstar to close games out, therefore we must conclude every ref favored game is winnable :rolleyes

Agreed. Call three fouls on Duncan in less than a minute, and the Spurs' odds of losing that game go WAY up. NBA teams are too good to give them that kind of a jump.

[Eddy from Austin]

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/773320119.gif?1369233174

[GSH]

Flagrant fouls are always judgment calls. Which means that somebody almost always disagrees. Before you go too far insisting that the league is rigged, or that Manu's play was called a flagrant just because it was the Spurs, have a look at the clips below. Both of them were called Flagrant 2 on the court. Both were later downgraded to Flagrant 1's, but that's not much comfort, since both players were ejected from the games they were playing in.

The first clip is J.R. Smith (skip to about the 1:25 mark). He was doing exactly the same thing that Manu was trying to do - prevent a player from getting a shot up at the rim. The second clip is of J.J. Barea (skip to the 1:05 mark), and pretty much speaks for itself. Ray Allen shoved the shit out of Barea, and Barea shoved the shit out of Allen. But Barea got called for a Flagrant 2 and ejected. One of the criteria they use for determining flagrant fouls is the outcome - if an altercation ensues. So, because Ray Allen reacted like the bitch he is, it became a flagrant foul on Barea. But a Flagrant 2?

The message is: don't expect logic or consistency, when it comes to flagrant fouls. Manu's foul may have looked worse than it was, to the ref who called it on the floor. And the league isn't going to completely get rid of it, once it's been called, because they don't want their high-flyers getting hit while they are in the air. You may not like it, but nobody singled out the Spurs.

XMys3PC1Xvk
w5bTVIQRvt0

[TheGoldStandard]

I don't mind refs calling flagrant fouls when they don't know the whole story ( if they're away from the play but they take a nasty spill etc.) but when you can review the play and you see that not only did he not hit his head but he was up and about in no time swishing free throws without being checked by a team doctor and there was no general concern from the bench then you know that this shit is fake.

[wildcardX]

Tony Allen what a F'n pu**y. This is the guy that called out the Spurs in 2011. He squirms on the ground holding his head, he didn't even land on his head. If anything he should be holding his shoulder or back and what's with that blank look on his face? For that piece of shit acting job Pop should send in Baynes to give him a real flagrant foul, send him flying into the second row or something.

[TampaDude]

Tony Allen what a F'n pu**y. This is the guy that called out the Spurs in 2011. He squirms on the ground holding his head, he didn't even land on his head. If anything he should be holding his shoulder or back and what's with that blank look on his face? For that piece of shit acting job Pop should send in Baynes to give him a real flagrant foul, send him flying into the second row or something.

^ this, tbh

[SA210]

In before the ad hominems from others.



This is not exactly fair, tbh. You're basically in before everything and anyone, always. You live here. That's a great advantage, imho.

[Bartleby]

I can live with the flagrant call, and probably would feel it was warranted if the roles were reversed. But after the refs had a chance to review the play they should have given Allen a technical for his theatrics.

[TJastal]

I don't mind refs calling flagrant fouls when they don't know the whole story ( if they're away from the play but they take a nasty spill etc.) but when you can review the play and you see that not only did he not hit his head but he was up and about in no time swishing free throws without being checked by a team doctor and there was no general concern from the bench then you know that this shit is fake.

But he was upended in a cockadoodily way. Nba rules state cockadoodee upendings like the one Ginobili gave Allen have to be called flagrant. You dumb cockadoodie, you.

[ChumpDumper]

This is not exactly fair, tbh. You're basically in before everything and anyone, always. You live here. That's a great advantage, imho.Thanks again for fulfilling my prophecy and making it all about me. Can't help yourself, can you?

[ChumpDumper]

But he was upended in a cockadoodily way. Nba rules state cockadoodee upendings like the one Ginobili gave Allen have to be called flagrant. You dumb cockadoodie, you.Don't have to, I guess -- they just are.

No use crying about it now.

[Fabbs]

If Allen did the same to GNob would ST say flagrant?
Yes.

[pgardn]

Manu's intent was to stop Phony Allen from scoring an easy layup. He did that. His contact was the minimum necessary to prevent the basket. Therefore it doesn't meet the "unnecessary" criteria. There's no rule that states he's required to wrap up his opponent to prevent him from falling awkwardly.
The ref stated and the league stated Manu hung on to Allen excessively. Intent was not the problem.

I disagree with the call, but I understand the league's view. When you intend to foul, and prevent an easy layup, a player attempts to make sure there is no "and one". The player then wades into the unnecessary or excessive judgement by the ref., especially if the fouled player is moving quickly and in the air.

So it's not a surprise or unexpected as to draw outrage. The outrageous act was Allen's acting. But this was not flopping by the rules. It was faking a head injury. Which will now cost him 5 grand.

[Obstructed_View]

The ref stated and the league stated Manu hung on to Allen excessively.

First of all, I haven't seen where the ref or the league stated anything. If you have relevant info, feel free to post it here. Secondly, unless there's a rule that states it's two shots and the ball if you are intentionally attempting to prevent a layup, then Manu's intent couldn't possibly be more relevant to the discussion. Manu wanted to prevent an easy two points and make the player earn them at the line because it was a four point game with under 30 seconds to go. Happens all the time, and his contact to make Allen earn it at the line was the least contact he could make to ensure it. There's no definition in the rulebook that would make Manu's actions remotely flagrant. He didn't wind up. He in fact did NOT hand onto Allen, he let go and put his hand up right away.

To address the two videos GSH posted up, here's why they aren't remotely relevant: JR Smith wound up with both hands before hitting Barnes, his team was getting the shit beat out of them, and he has a reputation as a dumbass who makes dumbass decisions. And JJ Barea retaliated to a push by Ray Allen that wasn't called by clubbing him to the ground, showing up the officials and taking matters into his own hands. That was intended as payback, was clearly an altercation, and they could just as easily have given him two technicals as called him for a flagrant. There has been no history between Allen and Ginobili this year, there was no contact on the play that would make any of the officials think it was retaliation, and Ginobili is not known as a guy who drops the hammer on people to send a message.

[2centsworth]

First of all, I haven't seen where the ref or the league stated anything. If you have relevant info, feel free to post it here. Secondly, unless there's a rule that states it's two shots and the ball if you are intentionally attempting to prevent a layup, then Manu's intent couldn't possibly be more relevant to the discussion. Manu wanted to prevent an easy two points and make the player earn them at the line because it was a four point game with under 30 seconds to go. Happens all the time, and his contact to make Allen earn it at the line was the least contact he could make to ensure it. There's no definition in the rulebook that would make Manu's actions remotely flagrant. He didn't wind up. He in fact did NOT hand onto Allen, he let go and put his hand up right away.

To address the two videos GSH posted up, here's why they aren't remotely relevant: JR Smith wound up with both hands before hitting Barnes, his team was getting the shit beat out of them, and he has a reputation as a dumbass who makes dumbass decisions. And JJ Barea retaliated to a push by Ray Allen that wasn't called by clubbing him to the ground, showing up the officials and taking matters into his own hands. That was intended as payback, was clearly an altercation, and they could just as easily have given him two technicals as called him for a flagrant. There has been no history between Allen and Ginobili this year, there was no contact on the play that would make any of the officials think it was retaliation, and Ginobili is not known as a guy who drops the hammer on people to send a message.

People make shit up all the time. Anyone who actually knows what they are talking about and not ccopying from the Internet knows that was a questionable call.

[ChumpDumper]

First of all, I haven't seen where the ref or the league stated anything. If you have relevant info, feel free to post it here. Secondly, unless there's a rule that states it's two shots and the ball if you are intentionally attempting to prevent a layup, then Manu's intent couldn't possibly be more relevant to the discussion. Manu wanted to prevent an easy two points and make the player earn them at the line because it was a four point game with under 30 seconds to go. Happens all the time, and his contact to make Allen earn it at the line was the least contact he could make to ensure it. There's no definition in the rulebook that would make Manu's actions remotely flagrant. He didn't wind up. He in fact did NOT hand onto Allen, he let go and put his hand up right away. Sure there is. the contact was deemed unnecessary and or excessive.

One could easily argue that the grabbing was unnecessary and excessive, especially when Allen was jumping with that much forward momentum on a fastbreak. As had been said before, that is called all the time.

[2centsworth]

Sure there is. the contact was deemed unnecessary and or excessive.

One could easily argue that the grabbing was unnecessary and excessive, especially when Allen was jumping with that much forward momentum on a fastbreak. As had been said before, that is called all the time.

To make sure I'm understanding you, did you say the Mahimi Foul on Lebron was the same play as the Manu on TA play?

[GSH]

People make shit up all the time. Anyone who actually knows what they are talking about and not ccopying from the Internet knows that was a questionable call.

Show me where I said it wasn't a questionable call, Short Bus. When you said people make shit up, you were obviously talking about yourself. What I said was that they weren't singling out the Spurs - lots of flagrant calls are questionable. If you get this butt-hurt every time a ref misses a call against Your Team, it's no wonder you're so miserable. And I'm sorry - I didn't realize that while I was gone they passed a You Can't Copy Stuff From The Internet Rule.



they could just as easily have given him two technicals as called him for a flagrant.


C'mon OV... you know the game better than that. If the refs thought that was retaliation, and they wanted to get control of the game, they COULD have called a technical. Or even two technical, like you said. But that's not the same thing as a flagrant foul, and you know it. The contact on that play didn't even come close to justifying a Flagrant 2. And you know that, too.

I know you know the game. Look at those two clips, and tell me that you think either one of them rises to the level of a Flagrant 2, and an ejection. My point, my only point, was that flagrant calls are subjective, and refs get them wrong all the time - the call against Manu wasn't a case of singling the Spurs out.
-------

One thing I can guarantee both of you, though: If it had happened on the other end of the floor, and Allen had done the exact same thing sending Manu to the floor like that, the overwhelming majority of people here would be screaming about what a dirty play it was, and how it could have hurt Manu badly.

[Slippy]

If it was head contact or breaking his fall from excessive body contact then a flagrant would of been the right call. The NBA opening up a whole new can of worms by accessing heavy or prolonged arm contact as flagrant because Manu could easily make the arguement his intent was to go for the ball and accidently got his arm so his next intent was to save the players fall. Shouldn't matter if it's in transition or half court play. Why, it would lead to players refraining from trying a block from behind in transition as the degree of difficulty and risk of penalty is too high. Not forgetting this is the damn play-offs.

The last thing NBA wants to do is discourage players going full tilt. Come from behind block is a spetacular play even to the most casual viewer.

[ChumpDumper]

To make sure I'm understanding you, did you say the Mahimi Foul on Lebron was the same play as the Manu on TA play?No.

[ChumpDumper]

If it was head contact or breaking his fall from excessive body contact then a flagrant would of been the right call. The NBA opening up a whole new can of worms by accessing heavy or prolonged arm contact as flagrant because Manu could easily make the arguement his intent was to go for the ball and accidently got his arm so his next intent was to save the players fall. Shouldn't matter if it's in transition or half court play. Why, it would lead to players refraining from trying a block from behind in transition as the degree of difficulty and risk of penalty is too high. Not forgetting this is the damn play-offs.

The last thing NBA wants to do is discourage players going full tilt. Come from behind block is a spetacular play even to the most casual viewer.I don't know where all of you found the intent clause of the flagrant foul rule.

You'll have to provide a link for me.

[Obstructed_View]

My point, my only point, was that flagrant calls are subjective, and refs get them wrong all the time - the call against Manu wasn't a case of singling the Spurs out.

Oh, I agree with that. I've already said that if the refs wanted to screw the Spurs, they could have made Conley's last regulation basket and and-1 and given the game to Memphis. But you and I both know they were forced to rule that play a flagrant so they could go back to review it, and you and I both know that they would never have ruled it a flagrant if Phony Allen hadn't rolled around on the floor like a bitch.


One thing I can guarantee both of you, though: If it had happened on the other end of the floor, and Allen had done the exact same thing sending Manu to the floor like that, the overwhelming majority of people here would be screaming about what a dirty play it was, and how it could have hurt Manu badly.
I'd probably be livid, mainly at the league office for not ruling Allen's trip on Parker a flagrant in game one. I'd have said that their failure to ding him gave him carte-blanche to do whatever he wanted.

[pgardn]

First of all, I haven't seen where the ref or the league stated anything. If you have relevant info, feel free to post it here. Secondly, unless there's a rule that states it's two shots and the ball if you are intentionally attempting to prevent a layup, then Manu's intent couldn't possibly be more relevant to the discussion. Manu wanted to prevent an easy two points and make the player earn them at the line because it was a four point game with under 30 seconds to go. Happens all the time, and his contact to make Allen earn it at the line was the least contact he could make to ensure it. There's no definition in the rulebook that would make Manu's actions remotely flagrant. He didn't wind up. He in fact did NOT hand onto Allen, he let go and put his hand up right away.

To address the two videos GSH posted up, here's why they aren't remotely relevant: JR Smith wound up with both hands before hitting Barnes, his team was getting the shit beat out of them, and he has a reputation as a dumbass who makes dumbass decisions. And JJ Barea retaliated to a push by Ray Allen that wasn't called by clubbing him to the ground, showing up the officials and taking matters into his own hands. That was intended as payback, was clearly an altercation, and they could just as easily have given him two technicals as called him for a flagrant. There has been no history between Allen and Ginobili this year, there was no contact on the play that would make any of the officials think it was retaliation, and Ginobili is not known as a guy who drops the hammer on people to send a message.


It was ruled excessive and the league did review it. I don't agree with the ruling but realize I am a fan.

Now what is strange is that during the review they also disagreed with the refs on flopping (which I had no idea the refs were also reviewing). The league said the refs should have called flopping. I thought flopping was the attempt to fool refs DURING play. So apparently one can flop at any time.
I find this strange.

As far as where I read it... Can't remember, I read too much stuff from different sources. Think it was Yahoo. If you and other posters don't believe my recollection of what I read... Fine. Don't really care.

[TJastal]

I don't know where all of you found the intent clause of the flagrant foul rule.

You'll have to provide a link for me.

You don't need a link it's common sense that it is a factor the officials look at when considering upgrading a foul to a flagrant. But since your whining for one, here.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/23/roy-hibbert-believes-shane-battiers-knee-to-his-groin-in-game-1-was-intentional/


Battier was ruled for the offensive foul on the play, and the referees actually reviewed it to see if there was the possibility that it could be ruled a flagrant *– something extremely rare when fouls are made by the offensive player.


As for whether or not it was intentional, only Battier can answer that question. It’s doubtful that there was an intent to injure on Battier’s part, but once he saw Hibbert was there and that he’d have zero chance of scoring over him, that’s when he likely decided to lead with the knee in an obvious attempt to make contact to try to draw the foul.

[ChumpDumper]

You don't need a link it's common sense that it is a factor the officials look at when considering upgrading a foul to a flagrant. But since your whining for one, here.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/23/roy-hibbert-believes-shane-battiers-knee-to-his-groin-in-game-1-was-intentional/Thank you for confirming there is nothing about intent in the rule book.

Did you seriously just Google "flagrant foul intent"?

[2centsworth]

Show me where I said it wasn't a questionable call, Short Bus. When you said people make shit up, you were obviously talking about yourself. What I said was that they weren't singling out the Spurs - lots of flagrant calls are questionable. If you get this butt-hurt every time a ref misses a call against Your Team, it's no wonder you're so miserable. And I'm sorry - I didn't realize that while I was gone they passed a You Can't Copy Stuff From The Internet Rule.

Where in the world did you come from? I wasn't speaking to you. Talk about paranoid and miserable.

[Obstructed_View]

It was ruled excessive and the league did review it. I don't agree with the ruling but realize I am a fan.
As far as where I read it... Can't remember, I read too much stuff from different sources. Think it was Yahoo. If you and other posters don't believe my recollection of what I read... Fine. Don't really care.

Actually, I'm not sure that the league even reviewed it. They reviewed Tony Allen's reaction after the play, but there wasn't any statement from the league saying that Manu did anything right or wrong. That's why it was kind of strange for you to say "The ref stated and the league stated Manu hung on to Allen excessively" because neither said any such thing.

Eric Freeman from Yahoo said "under the NBA's now-standard enforcement of flagrant fouls, this play qualifies as a dangerous action with the potential to injure", but that's an opinion from a writer, not a statement from the league or from a ref. He's also wrong, since Tony Brothers clearly deviated from the "now-standard enforcement" by not hitting Mahinmi with a flagrant on the exact same play less than 24 hours later.

And let's step back a bit from this, because there's an important detail to remember: The NBA refs are NOT allowed to review a foul unless it's first ruled flagrant on the floor. After the play, they stood around looking at each other while Phony Allen rolled around on the floor, and it took at least 30 seconds for them to make the ruling, and the only reason they did is so they could go back and check the severity of the foul. There's an argument to be made that if the rule had allowed them to go back and watch replay without first ruling it a flagrant, they'd never have upgraded it, particularly given Allen's phony reaction. An real, legitimate flagrant foul of any grade is usually signaled immediately by the refs.

[TJastal]

Thank you for confirming there is nothing about intent in the rule book.

Did you seriously just Google "flagrant foul intent"?

The official rules state:

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/04/18/flagrant.technical/


2. Whether or not the player was making a legitimate basketball play (e.g., whether a player is making a legitimate effort to block a shot; note, however, that a foul committed during a block attempt can still be considered flagrant if other criteria are present such as recklessness and hard contact to the head);

Seems pretty straight forward that one can interpret the above as gauging a players' intent. Manu had no intention of causing injury as his actions showed. It should have been a factor (the overriding one IMO) when the officials reviewed the play.

So what will you whine about next?

[pgardn]

Actually, I'm not sure that the league even reviewed it. They reviewed Tony Allen's reaction after the play, but there wasn't any statement from the league saying that Manu did anything right or wrong. That's why it was kind of strange for you to say "The ref stated and the league stated Manu hung on to Allen excessively" because neither said any such thing.

Eric Freeman from Yahoo said "under the NBA's now-standard enforcement of flagrant fouls, this play qualifies as a dangerous action with the potential to injure", but that's an opinion from a writer, not a statement from the league or from a ref. He's also wrong, since Tony Brothers clearly deviated from the "now-standard enforcement" by not hitting Mahinmi with a flagrant on the exact same play less than 24 hours later.

And let's step back a bit from this, because there's an important detail to remember: The NBA refs are NOT allowed to review a foul unless it's first ruled flagrant on the floor. After the play, they stood around looking at each other while Phony Allen rolled around on the floor, and it took at least 30 seconds for them to make the ruling, and the only reason they did is so they could go back and check the severity of the foul. There's an argument to be made that if the rule had allowed them to go back and watch replay without first ruling it a flagrant, they'd never have upgraded it, particularly given Allen's phony reaction. An real, legitimate flagrant foul of any grade is usually signaled immediately by the refs.

The way I interpreted what I read is that the league backed the officials because they thought Manu hung on to Allen's arm too long thus it was excessive. I personally don't agree.

Your last paragraph is interesting and again illustrates holes in the proper use of rules. I also still don't understand during what time frame the flopping rule is applied. Tony Allen rolls around well after the whistle and because he clearly attempted to deceive the officials, the league calls it flopping? Can one flop during a time out, during halftime? I also would think the league reviewed the entire sequence of events. If posters wish to question my recollection of what i read and associated thoughts on said events that's fine.

[Obstructed_View]

The way I interpreted what I read is that the league backed the officials because they thought Manu hung on to Allen's arm too long thus it was excessive. I personally don't agree.
I don't agree with it either, but I don't think I did a good job of showing you the article that I suspect is the one you read. Here's a link to the article (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/grizzlies-tony-allen-fined-5k-flopping-manu-ginobili-212106248.html) that has one Yahoo reporter quoting another one, making the quote look way more official than it should have been. It's a step below a White House reporter quoting another White House reporter as "sources inside the White House". It's pretty clearly an attempt to deceive, and I wouldn't even have caught it but I was searching for it for this conversation. I didn't intend to directly question your recollection for any reason other than I had not seen any kind of statement from the NBA about it. Yahoo looked like they were trying to create one just to fill space in the Allen flop story.



Your last paragraph is interesting and again illustrates holes in the proper use of rules. I also still don't understand during what time frame the flopping rule is applied. Tony Allen rolls around well after the whistle and because he clearly attempted to deceive the officials, the league calls it flopping? Can one flop during a time out, during halftime? I also would think the league reviewed the entire sequence of events.

The league can review whatever they choose to. Unlike the officials, they aren't constrained in any way by the rulebook. For instance, the refs may very well have gone back to look at Allen's reaction, noticed he was faking, and been unable to apply the flopping rule because they're only allowed to use replay to review the foul itself. That the reaction prompted the upgrade of the foul in order to go back and review it is kind of a comical irony of the ridiculous way the rules clash with each other.

The NBA rulebook states as follows:



"Flopping" is defined as any physical act that appears to have been intended to cause the referees to call a foul on another player. The primary factor in determining whether a player committed a flop is whether his physical reaction to contact with another player is inconsistent with what would reasonably be expected given the force or direction of the contact.

The league didn't have to review that one for long. If one of the refs on the floor had clearly seen that Allen hadn't hurt his face, they probably could have called it then. I'm fairly certain that the refs think they have enough shit to worry about during a playoff game to try to determine in real time whether someone faked contact and are happy to leave it to the league office to police.

[ChumpDumper]

The official rules state:

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/04/18/flagrant.technical/



Seems pretty straight forward that one can interpret the above as gauging a players' intent. Manu had no intention of causing injury as his actions showed. It should have been a factor (the overriding one IMO) when the officials reviewed the play.

So what will you whine about next?Since that isn't the rule book, thanks again for showing there is nothing about intent in the rule book.

What are you going to whine about next?

Oh yeah -- me.

[pgardn]

I don't agree with it either, but I don't think I did a good job of showing you the article that I suspect is the one you read. Here's a link to the article (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/grizzlies-tony-allen-fined-5k-flopping-manu-ginobili-212106248.html) that has one Yahoo reporter quoting another one, making the quote look way more official than it should have been. It's a step below a White House reporter quoting another White House reporter as "sources inside the White House". It's pretty clearly an attempt to deceive, and I wouldn't even have caught it but I was searching for it for this conversation. I didn't intend to directly question your recollection for any reason other than I had not seen any kind of statement from the NBA about it. Yahoo looked like they were trying to create one just to fill space in the Allen flop story.




The league can review whatever they choose to. Unlike the officials, they aren't constrained in any way by the rulebook. For instance, the refs may very well have gone back to look at Allen's reaction, noticed he was faking, and been unable to apply the flopping rule because they're only allowed to use replay to review the foul itself. That the reaction prompted the upgrade of the foul in order to go back and review it is kind of a comical irony of the ridiculous way the rules clash with each other.

The NBA rulebook states as follows:



The league didn't have to review that one for long. If one of the refs on the floor had clearly seen that Allen hadn't hurt his face, they probably could have called it then. I'm fairly certain that the refs think they have enough shit to worry about during a playoff game to try to determine in real time whether someone faked contact and are happy to leave it to the league office to police.


Its all good.

i have become more interested in rules ever since Stern rather haphazardly levied the fine for leaving players at home versus Miami. So it is interesting to discuss apparent contradictions, or the rule of law invented at the time of an incident lacking precedence.

[Obstructed_View]

i have become more interested in rules ever since Stern rather haphazardly levied the fine for leaving players at home versus Miami. So it is interesting to discuss apparent contradictions, or the rule of law invented at the time of an incident lacking precedence.

That definitely covers the "league not constrained by rules" thing I mentioned earlier.

[TJastal]

Since that isn't the rule book, thanks again for showing there is nothing about intent in the rule book.

What are you going to whine about next?

Oh yeah -- me.


Rules and regulations: Flagrant Fouls

By Official NBA RulesPosted Apr 18 2010 7:54PMThe following is a summary of rules and regulations regarding flagrant fouls, technical fouls, elbow fouls and other player conduct issues.

Are you actually claiming the rules laid out at nba.com aren't official enough for you? Or having problems deciphering the plain English on the page? Which is it?

[ChumpDumper]

Are you actually claiming the rules laid out at nba.com aren't official enough for you? Or having problems deciphering the plain English on the page? Which is it?I'm claiming that isn't the rule book.

Keep Googling -- you might be smart enough to find the actual rule book.

Then again, there is ample evidence to the contrary.

[TJastal]

I'm claiming that isn't the rule book.

Keep Googling -- you might be smart enough to find the actual rule book.

Then again, there is ample evidence to the contrary.

Wow. You're reaching new levels of stupid. If nba.com has the rulebook paraphrased on their website and claim its the official nba rules I think its safe to assume they are.

[ChumpDumper]

Wow. You're reaching new levels of stupid. If nba.com has the rulebook paraphrased on their website and claim its the official nba rules I think its safe to assume they are.No.

There is an NBA rule book.

That's not it.

Keep Googling.

[TJastal]

No.

There is an NBA rule book.

That's not it.

Keep Googling.

Keep being stupid. It fits you perfectly.

[ChumpDumper]

Keep being stupid. It fits you perfectly.Then there is the possibility you found the rule book and are simply afraid to post the flagrant foul rule.

Which is it?

Too stupid to find it or too afraid to post it?

[DMC]

I didn't think it was a flagrant foul in the moment and I don't think it was a flagrant foul now, either. Of the two ways that play has been called in the last two days, I think the way it was handled in Miami was the more appropriate way, particularly in a game this late in the playoffs.

I strongly disagree with that sort of thinking. The rules should remain the same, and the fouls should be called in the same way every game from preseason to the last second of the Finals. There should not be a numbing of calls in the playoffs. There should not be a tighter focus on getting calls correct in the playoffs. Implications of the game have nothing to do with refereeing, that's the team's problem.

The real issue is that referees give more weight to a call made on the floor than the same play being reviewed by 3 refs using several different angles and slow motion. It's important that the foul be called correctly, and when that gets tainted because of the implications of the foul, the game is no longer a fair contest because you have the league enforcing situational gradient on foul calling. We see that already in almost every game anyhow where they allow all the contact imaginable in the 1st half and they tighten down on it later. If fouls were always called in the same way, there would not be any reason to consider the referees as part of the game.

In the NBA, I think more than any other professional sport, the refereeing becomes a major factor in the outcome of the game. They are so involved with the game, they basically control the momentum and they can stop or shift it at their whim. All they have to do is call a foul at an inopportune moment to stop momentum. We see it all the time and we just ignore it, but if you factor that stuff in, all the blatantly blown calls, they changed the game. Now the contest has become more about using those calls to your advantage, tricking the refs to get your way. The refs are now a large part of the game. That's why they are treated like celebrities. I cannot tell you a single NFL ref, don't know any names.

[TJastal]

Then there is the possibility you found the rule book and are simply afraid to post the flagrant foul rule.

Which is it?

Too stupid to find it or too afraid to post it?

Bitch:

You asked for "a link" regarding the explanation of the rules... I supplied one for you.. from the official site of the nba since you sqwauked about the first link. You didn't mention anything about a rulebook. And apparently think everyone has links handily bookmarked for all your asssanine requests. It's obvious you don't place any integrity in the nba.com website. That's fine by me. I helped you out and supplied answers to your questions in a timely and complete manner. Yiu should show me some respect by at least thanking me.

[GSH]

1. The league reviews all flagrant fouls. There is no rule saying that they have to, but they do.
2. The official rule book for 2012-2013 is here: http://mediacentral.nba.com/media/me...-Rule-Book.pdf
3. The league also publishes "guidance" for referees, with explanations and examples to help referees know the preferred interpretation of certain rules. They used to publish it on the public website, but I'm not sure they do anymore. But the "rules" on the NBA website include some of the same type of information, to help fans understand how rules are interpreted. We tend to quote that web page a lot - I certainly do - but it isn't the official rule book.
4. This is all the official rule book says about flagrant fouls. It is minimal and vague:
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. A personal foul is charged to the
offender and a team foul is charged to the team.
b. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be
unnecessary and excessive, a flagrant foul—penalty (2) will be assessed. A personal foul is
charged to the offender and a team foul is charged to the team.
5. Note that the actual rules reference how the contact is "interpreted". It was very clearly left up to the discretion of the officials. And while the league has issued guidance, to help flagrants be called more consistently, it still comes down to interpretation every single time. And that is probably the biggest reason the league reviews them all individually.

No matter how specifically the league tried to spell out the requirements for a flagrant, people would still dispute the calls. "That wasn't really a wind-up", "He didn't really follow through", "That contact was no different that what so-and-so did earlier", etc. It's a judgment call, and just like charge/block calls, it will always be bitterly disputed.

[TJastal]

3. The league also publishes "guidance" for referees, with explanations and examples to help referees know the preferred interpretation of certain rules. They used to publish it on the public website, but I'm not sure they do anymore. But the "rules" on the NBA website include some of the same type of information, to help fans understand how rules are interpreted. We tend to quote that web page a lot - I certainly do - but it isn't the official rule book.

It's not "official" but it surely is credible for most people looking for interpretation of the rules. Note I said "most". :lol

[still.focused]

LOL @ you quoting point #3 but not point #4

[TJastal]

LOL @ you quoting point #3 but not point #4

Talks about how the "rulebook" is minimal and vague. Obviously it wasn't much help for both officials and fans alike seeking guidance. And the nba obviously saw the need for to have them fleshed out furthur. Only a complete childish asshat would dismiss them as incosequential and throw a fit about it. Especially after whining for hours for somebody to post "a link".

[ChumpDumper]

I asked for a link to the rule.

You failed to provide one.
It's not "official"Thanks again. :tu

I'm concluding you are unable to find it and unwilling to post it since you know there will be nothing about intent in the rule.

[TJastal]

nba.com's official website explaining the rules isn't official enough for me. :cry.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, post the flagrant foul rule from the NBA rule book.

Bet you can't do it.

[2centsworth]

I asked for a link to the rule.

You failed to provide one.Thanks again. :tu

I'm concluding you are unable to find it and unwilling to post it since you know there will be nothing about intent in the rule.
Why do you think the NBA ruled not to suspend Dwayne Wade for the elbow he threw to the head of a Stevenson?. Rule 12A sec V L (3) states an elbow foul which makes contact above shoulder level is an automatic ejection

[ChumpDumper]

Why do you think the NBA ruled not to suspend Dwayne Wade for the elbow he threw to the head of a Stevenson?. Rule 12A sec V L (3) states an elbow foul which makes contact above shoulder level is an automatic ejectionDon't know.

Was it called at the time?

[polandprzem]

I bet every time a situation happens refs are waiting for CD to judge it and inform them directly through earphones

[ChumpDumper]

I bet every time a situation happens refs are waiting for CD to judge it and inform them directly through earphonesYou lose.

[2centsworth]

Don't know.

Was it called at the time?

no, but neither was Tony Allen's flopping penalty which was retroactively called and enforced with the appropriate punishment. So did the league make a judgement on intent?

[ChumpDumper]

no, but neither was Tony Allen's flopping penalty which was retroactively called and enforced with the appropriate punishment. So did the league make a judgement on intent?Don't know.

I don't suppose you could post the flagrant foul rule, could you?

[2centsworth]

Don't know.

I don't suppose you could post the flagrant foul rule, could you?

Curious to know your opinion of why the league decided not to punish Wade for violating Rule 12A sec V L (3) ?

" A player, coach or trainer must be ejected for:
(1) A punching foul
(2) A fighting foul
(3) An elbow foul which makes contact above shoulder level"

[polandprzem]

You lose.

By what rule?

[ChumpDumper]

Curious to know your opinion of why the league decided not to punish Wade for violating Rule 12A sec V L (3) ?

" A player, coach or trainer must be ejected for:
(1) A punching foul
(2) A fighting foul
(3) An elbow foul which makes contact above shoulder level"
You just said no foul was called.

Answered your own question.

[ChumpDumper]

By what rule?Do you have rules in Poland?

[2centsworth]

You just said no foul was called.

Answered your own question.

He was assessed the flagrant foul retroactively, but did not have to pay the price like Tony Allen.

[ChumpDumper]

He was assessed the flagrant foul retroactively, but did not have to pay the price like Tony Allen.Are you saying Wade doesn't have to pay the fine that comes with flagrant fouls?

[2centsworth]

Are you saying Wade doesn't have to pay the fine that comes with flagrant fouls?

JR Smith got suspended for Elbowing Jason Terry to the head, but Wade does not. In your opinion, what's the difference?

[ChumpDumper]

JR Smith got suspended for Elbowing Jason Terry to the head, but Wade does not. In your opinion, what's the difference?You mean the flagrant two called during the game?

Offhand, I'd say the difference is it was a flagrant two called during the game.

[ChumpDumper]

And thanks to everyone for avoiding the actual flagrant rule like the plague. :tu

Yeah, it's ambiguous, you just want to be ambiguous in the Spurs' favor. Tough shit. spurfan would have gone nuts had the same foul happened to Manu and a flagrant was not called.

Rightly so.

[2centsworth]

You mean the flagrant two called during the game?

So if you elbow someone to the head and the ref don't see it then that's ok?

[ChumpDumper]

So if you elbow someone to the head and the ref don't see it then that's ok?See it when?

OK with whom?

Ever find the flagrant rule?

If no one sees a foul, how can it be called?

[2centsworth]

And thanks to everyone for avoiding the actual flagrant rule like the plague. :tu

Yeah, it's ambiguous, you just want to be ambiguous in the Spurs' favor. Tough shit. spurfan would have gone nuts had the same foul happened to Manu and a flagrant was not called.

Rightly so.

I think some of the posters are correct in stating that initially it wasn't called a flagrant, but Allen's acting job tipped the scale in favor of Memphis.

[2centsworth]

See it when?

OK with whom?

Ever find the flagrant rule?

If no one sees a foul, how can it be called?

So the league can't retroactively asses fouls since they weren't seen during the game?

[ChumpDumper]

I think some of the posters are correct in stating that initially it wasn't called a flagrant, but Allen's acting job tipped the scale in favor of Memphis.Conjecture.


So the league can't retroactively asses fouls since they weren't seen during the game?Who said that?

No one.

[2centsworth]

Who said that?

No one.

I guess I should have played the same game when you said "If no one sees a foul, how can it be called? " Who said that? No one.

Anyways, my initial reaction to the Manu foul was just good hard foul, but maybe it wasn't yours, so hence the difference of opinion.

At least you admitted to some ambiguity.the league's inconsistent enforcement of penalties like elbows to the head, which by the way the rule book never states have to be called during a game, makes this a never ending argument.

[ChumpDumper]

I guess I should have played the same game when you said "If no one sees a foul, how can it be called? " Who said that? No one.We were indeed talking about retroactive fouls.


Anyways, my initial reaction to the Manu foul was just good hard foul, but maybe it wasn't yours, so hence the difference of opinion. OK.


At least you admitted to some ambiguity.the league's inconsistent enforcement of penalties like elbows to the head, which by the way the rule book never states have to be called during a game, makes this a never ending argument.Actually no player can ever be ejected from a game retroactively. That seems to be the main sticking point with the Wade situation.

[GSH]

Most of the people bitching about this are way, way off base. The refs didn't single out Manu or the Spurs for special punishment. And the league isn't going to suspend a player in the playoffs, unless he does something more substantial than what Wade did on that play. In general, the plays you're citing just aren't that conclusive. If you can't say that a call is so obvious that you would feel the same way if the teams were reversed, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

You're never going to prove anything, because flagrant fouls are discretionary - period. It's always going to be one opinion vs. another. But if you're really trying to make a case that the league is biased on these kinds of issues, there are better examples. Here's a link to a story where the league upgraded a foul after the fact. A whole week after the fact, seemingly because Lebron made a public complaint about hard fouls by Chicago. ChumpDumper and I have disagreed about bias inside the NBA. I think this article shows the league doing something for LeBron that they wouldn't do for, say, Tiago Splitter. Read the whole article, and look at all the videos. The league's final decision makes no sense. And there is no explanation I can see for taking a week to do it, other than responding directly to LeBron's complaint. It's hard to absolutely prove bias. But if there's a smell test, this one wouldn't pass.
http://www.sportsgrid.com/nba/the-nba-upgraded-a-random-foul-by-taj-gibson-on-lebron-james-to-a-flagrant/

[polandprzem]

Do you have rules in Poland?

You did not answered to the question

[ChumpDumper]

You did not answered to the questionThe rule of foolish bets.

It's "You did not answer the question."

[polandprzem]

The rule of foolish bets.

It's "You did not answer the question."

Provide me a link

[GSH]

Actually no player can ever be ejected from a game retroactively. That seems to be the main sticking point with the Wade situation.




No, but a player CAN be suspended from the next game, due to a retroactive call. I think the sticking point is whether Wade's forearm to the head was excessive, which would have given the league reason to call it a flagrant 2, even retroactively.

[ChumpDumper]

Provide me a linkYou're already on the page.


No, but a player CAN be suspended from the next game, due to a retroactive call. I think the sticking point is whether Wade's forearm to the head was excessive, which would have given the league reason to call it a flagrant 2, even retroactively.But were talking about reasons why he wasn't suspended.

There it is.

[polandprzem]

Provide a link to the rules not to a thread of some board

You can't do that?

[ChumpDumper]

Provide a link to the rules not to a thread of some board

You can't do that?Since you don't have contact with any NBA referees, I'm the only one who can verify or disprove your claim.

I disproved it.

Told you it was a foolish bet.

[polandprzem]

Since you don't have contact with any NBA referees, I'm the only one who can verify or disprove your claim.

I disproved it.

Told you it was a foolish bet.

Where are the rules you can approve or disapprove?


No link, no rules. You lost. Loser :loser:

[T Park]

Ah Poland, holding up the stereotypes for all to see.

[polandprzem]

Ah Poland, holding up the stereotypes for all to see.

Nobody asked you for an opinion. Esp. about stereotypes you don't know nothing about.
Americans :rolleyes

[TJastal]

Seriously, post the flagrant foul rule from the NBA rule book.

Bet you can't do it.

Seriously, read the explanation of the NBA rulebook at the official nba website you moron.

[Fabbs]

I bet every time a situation happens refs are waiting for CD to judge it and inform them directly through earphones
:lol

Rumpy.

[2centsworth]

No, but a player CAN be suspended from the next game, due to a retroactive call. I think the sticking point is whether Wade's forearm to the head was excessive, which would have given the league reason to call it a flagrant 2, even retroactively.

The rule book is pretty clear and states an elbow to the head, excessive or not, is an automatic ejection. Wade got to elbow someone in the head and miss no playing time, which clearly compromises the intent of the rule to protect from head injuries/concussions.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, read the explanation of the NBA rulebook at the official nba website you moron.knew you couldn't do it.

Unable and unwilling to post a simple and easily found rule.

[ChumpDumper]

The rule book is pretty clear and states an elbow to the head, excessive or not, is an automatic ejection. Wade got to elbow someone in the head and miss no playing time, which clearly compromises the intent of the rule to protect from head injuries/concussions.Yeah, it's pretty clear a player can't be retroactively ejected. It's also pretty clear that the referees can asses either a flagrant one or a flagrant two to contact with the elbow above the shoulder. They chose the former. If you're saying they should change the rule to allow for a suspension for a retroactive flagrant one elbow foul, I agree with you -- but that is currently not the case.

[ChumpDumper]

Where are the rules you can approve or disapprove?


No link, no rules. You lost. Loser :loser:There are no links to the rules governing the bet you foolishly made and lost. Since you made the bet about something with which I would have to be involved, you left the determination of the winner or loser of the bet up to me. I determined you lost. Make a better bet next time.

There are definite links to the flagrant foul rule which actually exists. The fact that those arguing this flagrant foul intent angle have avoided posting the actual flagrant foul rule is proof enough for me that it will hurt if not completely devastate their argument about intent.

[2centsworth]

Yeah, it's pretty clear a player can't be retroactively ejected. It's also pretty clear that the referees can asses either a flagrant one or a flagrant two to contact with the elbow above the shoulder. They chose the former. If you're saying they should change the rule to allow for a suspension for a retroactive flagrant one elbow foul, I agree with you -- but that is currently not the case.

Rule book states an elbow to the head,without distinction as to severity, is in an automatic ejection. The gaping hole in the rule book is what if the violation is not caught by refs? IMO to stay consistent with the intent of the rule an elbow to the head should always equal missed playing time.

[Fabbs]

If you're saying they should change the rule to allow for a suspension for a retroactive flagrant one elbow foul, I agree with you -- but that is currently not the case.
I agree with you Humps. You agree with 2centsworth. We all agree.

NBA/all pro sports spineless non use of replay is spineless. So here we have Bitch Wade getting away with yet another cheapshot.

[ChumpDumper]

Rule book states an elbow to the head,without distinction as to severity, is in an automatic ejection. The gaping hole in the rule book is what if the violation is not caught by refs? IMO to stay consistent with the intent of the rule an elbow to the head should always equal missed playing time.I said I agree they should change the rule.

[2centsworth]

I said I agree they should change the rule.
Nothing to change just to add. Any elbow to the head = ejection is already in there. NBA has set a precedent that if you're not caught during game you could potentially only pay a fine, depending on severity and/or intent.

[ChumpDumper]

Nothing to change just to add. Any elbow to the head = ejection is already in there. NBA has set a precedent that if you're not caught during game you could potentially only pay a fine, depending on severity and/or intent.Adding is a change.

Mentioning intent in the flagrant foul rule would be a change as well.

[2centsworth]

Mentioning intent in the flagrant foul rule would be a change as well.

determining enforcement would not. It's not what you say but what you do.

[ChumpDumper]

determining enforcement would not. It's not what you say but what you do.Since were talking about the finest points of semantics now and agree on what the rules are now concerning Wade, what does any of that have to do with Manu?

[2centsworth]

Since were talking about the finest points of semantics now and agree on what the rules are now concerning Wade, what does any of that have to do with Manu?

A player's intent is considered by the league when enforcing penalties.

[TJastal]

A player's intent is considered by the league when enforcing penalties.

Nba.com is lying. Damn filthy liars all of em. Unless you have the actual rulebook with David Stern himself swearing an oath of authenticity go fish. Otherwise its all boooo'sheet.. boo'sheet I tell ya.

[ChumpDumper]

A player's intent is considered by the league when enforcing penalties.


Nba.com is lying. Damn filthy liars all of em. Unless you have the actual rulebook with David Stern himself swearing an oath of authenticity go fish. Otherwise its all boooo'sheet.. boo'sheet I tell ya.Post the flagrant rule.

Either one of you.

Go ahead.

What are you afraid of?

[polandprzem]

There are no links to the rules governing the bet you foolishly made and lost. Since you made the bet about something with which I would have to be involved, you left the determination of the winner or loser of the bet up to me. I determined you lost. Make a better bet next time.

There are definite links to the flagrant foul rule which actually exists. The fact that those arguing this flagrant foul intent angle have avoided posting the actual flagrant foul rule is proof enough for me that it will hurt if not completely devastate their argument about intent.

How smart you are :clap

[ChumpDumper]

How smart you are :clapDon't know about that. I do well on standardized tests fwiw.

[TJastal]

Post the flagrant rule.

Either one of you.

Go ahead.

What are you afraid of?

The guidelines expressed at the official site of the nba is good enough. I'm sure it will be eventually incorporated into the "rulebook" someday so even puckered pontificating assholes like yours can filled and satisfied.

[ChumpDumper]

The guidelines expressed at the official site of the nba is good enough. [unnecessary ad hominem]When you are asked directly for a link to the actual rule from the rule book, it is not good enough.

Post the actual rule from the actual rule book.

I triple dog dare you.

[Fabbs]

Rules and regulations: Flagrant Fouls

By Official NBA Rules
Posted Apr 18 2010 7:54PM

The following is a summary of rules and regulations regarding flagrant fouls, technical fouls, elbow fouls and other player conduct issues.

A. Flagrant Foul Rules

There are two types of Flagrant Fouls, as follows:

Flagrant "1" (FFP1) - unnecessary contact committed by a player against an opponent. The opposing team is awarded two (2) free throws and possession.

Flagrant "2" (FFP2) - unnecessary and excessive contact committed by a player against an opponent. The opposing team is awarded two (2) free throws and possession and the player committing the foul is automatically ejected.

Any player who commits two Flagrant "1" Fouls in the same game will be automatically ejected from that game.

In addition, in order to address the problem of repeat offenders, the following three-point system will be in effect during the 2010 Playoffs:

• Flagrant "1" = 1 point

• Flagrant "2" = 2 points

A player will receive the points set forth above for each flagrant foul committed during the Playoffs. If the player's Playoff total exceeds 3 points, he will receive an automatic suspension following the game in which his point total exceeds 3 points and for each additional flagrant foul committed during the Playoffs, as follows:

Player at 2 points commits a FFP2: automatic one-game suspension

Player at 3 or 4 points commits a FFP1: automatic one-game suspension

Player at 3 or 4 points commits a FFP2: automatic two-game suspension

Player at 5 points or more commits a FFP1 or FFP2: automatic two-game suspension

Once a player accumulates two (2) points, the League Office will immediately: (i) notify his team by e-mail; and (ii) send the player a letter by overnight mail (with a copy to his Head Coach and General Manager), in each case advising of the player's current point total and the penalties for any additional flagrant fouls he may commit during the Playoffs.

The League Office will review all flagrant fouls ("1" and "2"), and will have the right, following review, to reclassify a flagrant foul or to classify as flagrant a foul not called flagrant during a game. In addition, the League Office maintains the right to impose a fine and/or suspension upon any player who commits a flagrant foul at any time during the Playoffs (regardless of whether the point levels described above are reached).

The League Office will consider the following factors (as well as any other relevant facts and circumstances) in determining whether to classify a foul as Flagrant "1" or Flagrant "2", to reclassify a flagrant foul, or to impose a fine and/or suspension on the player involved:

1. The severity of the contact;

2. Whether or not the player was making a legitimate basketball play (e.g., whether a player is making a legitimate effort to block a shot; note, however, that a foul committed during a block attempt can still be considered flagrant if other criteria are present such as recklessness and hard contact to the head);

3. Whether, on a foul committed with a player's arm or hand, the fouling player wound up and/or followed through after making contact;

4. The potential for injury resulting from contact (e.g., a blow to the head and a foul committed while a player is in a vulnerable position);

5. The severity of any injury suffered by the offended player; and

6. The outcome of the contact (e.g., whether it led to an altercation).

NOTE: Each team will continue to be held responsible for the actions of its players on the court. Accordingly, if any individual player or team (collectively) commits, in the judgment of the League Office, an excessive number of flagrant fouls during the Playoffs, the player and/or that team's Head Coach will be subject to appropriate fines and/or suspensions.

[MannyIsGod]

Manny's got too many fucking problems to list. He thinks Manu's to blame for 2006. Lost cause.

Link to where I ever claimed that? Manu made a really stupid foul in 2006. One of the dumbest fouls in Spurs history. Lots of things could have changed the outcome of the game. You're a fucking moron.

[TJastal]

When you are asked directly for a link to the actual rule from the rule book, it is not good enough.

Post the actual rule from the actual rule book.

I triple dog dare you.

I'm satisfied with the rule explanations posted for everyone's convenience at the official site of the nba. The only reason you aren't is because you found out it doesn't jibe with your misconceptions of reality. We already know you won't be satisfied until the rulebook is updated. It may never be. I'm sorry to say your puckered pooter won't get the deep penetration and satisfaction it so desperately craves.

[Spurs and Mavs fan]

Manu made a really stupid foul in 2006. One of the dumbest fouls in Spurs history.

And if Manu hadn't made a 3-pointer before that, the Spurs wouldn't have even had a 104-101 lead to begin with.

[ChumpDumper]

Rules and regulations: Flagrant Fouls

By Official NBA Rules
Posted Apr 18 2010 7:54PM

The following is a summary of rules and regulations regarding flagrant fouls, technical fouls, elbow fouls and other player conduct issues.Not the actual rules.


I'm satisfied with the rule explanations posted for everyone's convenience at the official site of the nba. The only reason you aren't is because you found out it doesn't jibe with your misconceptions of reality. We already know you won't be satisfied until the rulebook is updated. It may never be. I'm sorry to say your puckered pooter won't get the deep penetration and satisfaction it so desperately craves.U mad, and fantasizing about me again.

You certainly are afraid to post the actual flagrant foul rule.

[MannyIsGod]

And if Manu hadn't made a 3-pointer before that, the Spurs wouldn't have even had a 104-101 lead to begin with.

And? This doesn't excuse stupid fouls at stupid times. Manu made several great plays in that comeback. None of that changes the fact that Manu committed one of the dumbest fouls in Spurs history.

[TJastal]

Not the actual rules.

U mad, and fantasizing about me again.

You certainly are afraid to post the actual flagrant foul rule.

Not afraid of anything. The nba basically acknowledged the rulebook wasn't adequate when they provided more detailed information on their website by one named "Official NBA Rules" (The name being a strong hint as to what was contained within). That you keep failing to a knowledge the reality of this isn't anyone else's problem but yours.

[pgardn]

The rule book is pretty clear and states an elbow to the head, excessive or not, is an automatic ejection. Wade got to elbow someone in the head and miss no playing time, which clearly compromises the intent of the rule to protect from head injuries/concussions.


I have yet to hear what exactly Wade was attempting to do?

Players moving up court and he finds it appropriate to jump up and aim an elbow at the head from behind?

what in God's name was he doing?

[ChumpDumper]

Not afraid of anything.Then post the actual rules.

[Fabbs]

I'm real worked up.
Humpy i just sent payment for these to OilCan Harrys for you/Blake:
http://img1.etsystatic.com/000/0/5700654/il_fullxfull.340502769.jpg

http://www.littlepinkumbrella.com/drink-recipe.php?id=3196

[ChumpDumper]

I'm worked up because I completely agree with ChumpDumper, but feel kinda dumb for reposting TJ's article while I do not agree with him.I guess they know you really well at OCH.

Never been there myself.

[Fabbs]

Why don't you post the rule Humpy?
Are you afraid?

[ChumpDumper]

Why don't you post the rule Humpy?
Are you afraid?On the contrary, I am making fun of the people who won't post it because they know it will seriously damage their argument.

And they hate it.

Why would I end that prematurely by myself?

Nothing is stopping you from giving it another try though.

[Fabbs]

^^ confusing. You're copping out.

[ChumpDumper]

^^ confusing. You're copping out.What part is confusing to you?

I'm here to help people understand, apparently.

[Fabbs]

:lol you're talking in circles and fantasizing about what others think of you. Grow up.
If you don't know the flagrant rule/afraid to post it, own up.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol you're talking in circles and fantasizing about what others think of you. Grow up.They are the ones making the fantasy posts.

Including you. Take your own advice.

If you don't know the flagrant rule/afraid to post it, own up.As I explained, I and I suspect those I have asked to post the rule looked up the rule long ago. They won't post it because they know it will hurt their stated positions in this thread. I won't post it because I am having a good time making fun of those who are afraid to post it.

[Fabbs]

They are the ones making the fantasy posts.

Including you. Take your own advice.
As I explained, I and I suspect those I have asked to post the rule looked up the rule long ago. They won't post it because they know it will hurt their stated positions in this thread. I won't post it because I am having a good time making fun of those who are afraid to post it.
Ya. Cool story.
http://suite101.com/article/malignant-narcissism-a29906

[ChumpDumper]

Ya. Cool story.It's the story of your posting about my going to a gay bar in Austin.

If you don't want me to talk about your posting about me, don't post about me.

Let me know if there is a part of that you don't understand.

[Obstructed_View]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why Chumpdumber has seventy-five THOUSAND posts, seventy-four thousand, nine hundred eighty of which don't really add anything to a discussion.

[ChumpDumper]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why people resort to ad hominems and post count smack when they can't concede a simple point out of abject fear.

Hell yes I'm going to have fun with that. No one has posted the rule, including you.

[TJastal]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why people resort to ad hominems and post count smack when they can't concede a simple point out of abject fear.

Hell yes I'm going to have fun with that. No one has posted the rule, including you.

The nba made it clear they think intent matters on their official website. Nobody really cares if the rulebook includes this or not, except you apparently. The longer you fail to recognize the reality of this the more idiotic you appear. So please, by all means, continue championing your failed position. By the time your finally finished you will be the laughingstock of all of spurstalk for the rest of eternity.

[Slippy]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why Chumpdumber has seventy-five THOUSAND posts, seventy-four thousand, nine hundred eighty of which don't really add anything to a discussion.
:lol

He's probably got his own pocket rule book.

[ChumpDumper]

The nba made it clear they think intent matters on their official website. Nobody really cares if the rulebook includes this or not, except you apparently. The longer you fail to recognize the reality of this the more idiotic you appear. So please, by all means, continue championing your failed position. By the time your finally finished you will be the laughingstock of all of spurstalk for the rest of eternity.My position is great -- you are still afraid to psot the flagrant foul rule and getting angrier with every post. Win + bonus for me.

Your position, otoh, is more akin to some of your other notable takes like your predictions for Splitter in the NBA -- just really wrong and honestly just another thing for you to get angry about.


:lol

He's probably got his own pocket rule book.No. It's easily found online where all the others found it but continue to act as if it doesn't exist. Their continued refusal to acknowledge black letter rules makes me win by default. They could have posted it and continued their weakened argument with some possible success, but they just rolled over and ceded any chance they had with denial and ad hominems -- anything to preserve their e-pride on an anonymous message board in front of a bunch of strangers.

[Manudona]

So, nobody explaining how come it was not a flagrant the foul against Manu when trying to score he was not only hacked but also violently pushed, yet it was just a "hard foul" (which I agree by the way)

[Obstructed_View]

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why people resort to ad hominems and post count smack when they can't concede a simple point out of abject fear.

Hell yes I'm going to have fun with that. No one has posted the rule, including you.

:lol Like you think I've read any of your posts to this point. I just see your name over and over again playing "hey I have the last word so I rule" while the rest of us are actually discussing basketball. You're like a rash that certain posters are too stupid to realize they shouldn't scratch.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Like you think I've read any of your posts to this point.So you really have no idea what you're talking about. :tu

What a stupid thing for you to say.