Was this foul as bad as it looks?

[xmas1997]

As usual the Spurs had to beat the Lakers as well as the refs in order to win the game.
I am used to it now. Those were two of the most obvious flagrant fouls I've seen in a long while, not to mention the tech on Hill that shouldn't have been!

[EVAY]

Spurs are always going to get hard (at least) fouls from the Lakers, because PJ believes that the Spurs don't respond well to physicality. He ( and Coach Karl of the Nuggets) always play us very very physically expecting us to back down.

We used to back down. We don't this year.

I knew they would go after Parker. PJ knows that he has to be stopped for the Lakers to win. We will see lots more flagrants against Parker. Whether or not they get called, I don't know. But they are coming.

Bynum's foul on Splitter was intentionally flagrant, I believe, to send a message of intimidation. I thought he responded well.

[Ginobilly]

Spurs are always going to get hard (at least) fouls from the Lakers, because PJ believes that the Spurs don't respond well to physicality. He ( and Coach Karl of the Nuggets) always play us very very physically expecting us to back down.

We used to back down. We don't this year.

I knew they would go after Parker. PJ knows that he has to be stopped for the Lakers to win. We will see lots more flagrants against Parker. Whether or not they get called, I don't know. But they are coming.

Bynum's foul on Splitter was intentionally flagrant, I believe, to send a message of intimidation. I thought he responded well.

Those fouls got me so pissed off! Where is Tony Massenberg, Robert Horry, and Kevin Willis when you need them??? Lakers try that again and I want to see Laker bodies falling down hard!

[Ginobilly]

Bynum's foul on Splitter was intentionally flagrant, I believe, to send a message of intimidation. I thought he responded well.

Master Splitter will karete chop that knee in half next time they meet.

[xmas1997]

Kevin Willis was the best enforcer I think we ever had.

[toki9]

? Artest did not appear to go for the ball at all. He came from behind and his arm's came down over TP's body. Tony did sell it though. The foul on Splitter from Bynum should have been flagrant IMO. But as previously posted, calls were semi made up & the officiating was kinda weird. Either way it was a W....So I am happy.

Yes and no...Artest reached from behind with both of his hands over Parker's head...his right hand/arm (I think) caught the ball but it was the other hand/arm that pushed Parker's shoulder and body...

[toki9]

No, he happened to get ball as he went for shoulder.

Well, maybe that was his intention, but the result is that he did get ball...so i don't think you can call that as a flagrant...but i'm no expert on this...

[toki9]

Bynum's foul on Splitter was ridiculous, but I loved how Splitter reacted...and he's been like that all season with hard fouls...I don't think there's another team in the NBA that has so many guys who maintain their composure after a hard foul...Manu, Hill, Parker, Splitter, Blair...just about everyone...strangely, I'd pick McDyess as the one most likely to go off on a hard foul...

[GSH]

Artest was just trying to wrap him up and make him earn it from the line. Maybe it was a poor decision, since Tony was out in front like that. But if you look at the play, it's very clear that Artest wasn't trying to hurt him. If he was, it would have looked a lot worse. It still could have been called a Flagrant I, I suppose. But it was just a guy trying to send someone to the line and make sure there was no and-1.

One of the worst shots of the night got no attention at all. I think it was the end of the third quarter. Hill had the ball, and held it a little too long. He finally kicked it out to Neal at the 3P line. The buzzer sounded before Neal could get the shot off, but Neal jacked it up anyway. After he let go of the ball, one of the Lakers (Brown maybe?), just put a wicked head shot on Neal. You can't call a personal foul there, because the buzzer sounded. But they sure as could, and should have called a flagrant. You can't take a free shot at someone's head, even in a dead ball situation. Out of all the plays people griped about last night, that one was the most chicken .

[ploto]

Artest got the ball and stripped Tony in the process so they were not going to call it a flagrant foul. Guys come down on the ball to strip it all the time. Good, hard foul.

The Bynum foul could have been called flagrant because technically what happened, but since it did appear intentional and was mostly brought about by bad timing, they did not call it. If Bynum had pulled him down at all, then they would have called it for sure. I know it does not have to be intentional to be flagrant but refs look at intent all the time.