Flagrant Foul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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/feature...ant.technical/

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

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:

Quote:

---

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJastal

The official rules state:

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/feature...ant.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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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.

---

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJastal

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJastal

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

No.

There is an NBA rule book.

That's not it.

Keep Googling.

---

Keep being stupid. It fits you perfectly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJastal

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by still.focused

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".

I asked for a link to the rule.

You failed to provide one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TJastal

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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

---

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

Bet you can't do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2centsworth

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

---

Don't know.

Was it called at the time?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by polandprzem

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

---

You lose.