Reply With Quote
^ this, tbh
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 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
This is not exactly fair, tbh. You're basically in before everything and anyone, always. You live here. That's a great advantage, imho.
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 adoodily way. Nba rules state adoodee upendings like the one Ginobili gave Allen have to be called flagrant. You dumb adoodie, you.
Thanks again for fulfilling my prophecy and making it all about me. Can't help yourself, can you?
Don't have to, I guess -- they just are.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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?
Show me where I said it wasn't a questionable call, Short Bus. When you said people make 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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...s-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.
Thank you for confirming there is nothing about intent in the rule book.
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.
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.
Last edited by Obstructed_View; 05-26-2013 at 03:24 AM.
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.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);
So what will you whine about next?
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
