League office, Steve Javie, LJ pay attention here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRHE_dgQelU
Printable View
League office, Steve Javie, LJ pay attention here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRHE_dgQelU
You could even argue that was a lot more violent that Manu on Allen.
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 100%duncan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by weebo
Cuz we kept Bonner...you know to spread the floor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
Kerr said it. Lebron didn't writhe around on the floor like a little bitch, thus no flagrant.
^ thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Dex
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.
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Dex
:clapQuote:
Originally Posted by Dex
:lol you forgot Manny
roflmfao!!!!
Manny's got too many fucking problems to list. He thinks Manu's to blame for 2006. Lost cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by SA210
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dex
Ask ChumpDumper he knows best
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 foulQuote:
Originally Posted by Old School 44
But it's strange they did not called it a flagrant since it's lebron and after Gino foul was discussed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
:lol:rollin
It's because the Spurs are dirty!
Do you really expect all refs to call games the same? We know they do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Stern
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ploto
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.
:lmao :lmao
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dex
Is there anyway to make that .gif into a youtube video. That's great stuff. It needs to go viral!!
Flagrant foul rules are subjective. What constitutes "unnecessary?"Quote:
Originally Posted by spursince#99
100% hahahaha
seen that play million times without a
flagrant called
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.
refs are not above making mistakes. we won, time to move on.
The league hates the spurs. Point blank, whats good for the geese is not good for the gander.
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.
LOVE
THE
PHONY
ALLEN
GIF!!
FWWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA H!!!!!!!
AMAZING. EPIC. INCREDIBLE. Buy that man a STEAK and KING CRAB dinner.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whisky Dog
Manu held on and pulled for too long.Quote:
Originally Posted by quentin_compson
Flagrant is the correct call.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by ploto
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
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.
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.
Bitch will avoid this thread like a welfare ho' avoids a job fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by polandprzem
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.
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.
Javie is full of shit and probably parroting Stern's agenda to avoid getting Donahue'd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
Could not GS fans claim the same about game 1?Quote:
Originally Posted by Whisky Dog
I think manu used more force tbh.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by ploto
4th quarter FTA in Game 1:
GS: 8
SA: 7
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whisky Dog
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aztecfan03
Very interesting. I wondered what your take was on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
But more plainly, leaving aside your proposed theory - do you think that foul was a flagrant foul?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by peacemaker885
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by easjer
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.
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
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.
NO!Quote:
Originally Posted by Darius McCrary
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
They did. Also didn't look like Lebron was upended as much .Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
In before the ad hominems from others.
Oh, too late already.
Excellent take.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
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.
And a Screwed Over Team also oftentimes cannot overcome the riggin and thereby can be farked over.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
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.
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 :rolleyesQuote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Those numbers mean nothing by themselves and you know it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel_13
they mean something when stated in contradiction to your unfounded theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by ploto
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheguevara
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.
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.
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, tbhQuote:
Originally Posted by wildcardX
This is not exactly fair, tbh. You're basically in before everything and anyone, always. You live here. That's a great advantage, imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by cumm dumpster
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoldStandard
Thanks again for fulfilling my prophecy and making it all about me. Can't help yourself, can you?Quote:
Originally Posted by SA210
Don't have to, I guess -- they just are.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
No use crying about it now.
If Allen did the same to GNob would ST say flagrant?
Yes.
The ref stated and the league stated Manu hung on to Allen excessively. Intent was not the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pgardn
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
Sure there is. the contact was deemed unnecessary and or excessive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2centsworth
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
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.
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.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2centsworth
I don't know where all of you found the intent clause of the flagrant foul rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slippy
You'll have to provide a link for me.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GSH
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GSH
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...s-intentional/
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Thank you for confirming there is nothing about intent in the rule book.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
Did you seriously just Google "flagrant foul intent"?
Where in the world did you come from? I wasn't speaking to you. Talk about paranoid and miserable.Quote:
Originally Posted by GSH
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pgardn
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.