Flagrant Foul

[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 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 cir stances 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 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 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 cir stance.

[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 cir stance, 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 adoody play!

[Cry Havoc]

NO!

It's the exact same adoody 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 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 cir stance, 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, Ko 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 ), 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 cir stance, 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

[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

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]

[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 out of Barea, and Barea shoved the 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 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.

[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 is fake.