Marcus Smart's "ejection"

[D.o.s.]

I can't believe that five pages into this thread that this has to be said but "unnecessary contact" is contact created that is not within the natural play on the ball or with the ball.

Because that would mean that it was just a normal foul, rather than some psuedo-macho posturing nonsense.

[Forza Juventus]

I think Marcus Smart should have been given a flagrant but not ejected.

[nickagneta]

I can't believe that five pages into this thread that this has to be said but "unnecessary contact" is contact created that is not within the natural play on the ball or with the ball.

Because that would mean that it was just a normal foul, rather than some psuedo-macho posturing nonsense.

He he. Yeah pretty much.

[jpotter33]

Smart's trying to draw contact for the and-1 move - that's a common offensive foul to me.

He was making a basketball play, where the other two weren't, and I don't think he was trying to elbow EP in the head other than just trying to find contact. That's where I fall in the flagrant foul spectrum.

You really have to pause to thing about what you've just written before you post it.

Elbowing someone is not a basketball play. Specifically the one where you actually swing an elbow intentionally at someone. Never has been, never will be. Elbowing someone in the head is a particularly dangerous version thereof.

You just don't have to leg to stand on here in rationalizing this.

Well this is going to be the last thing I say about this, because we're just disagreeing on what we saw, which won't get solved any time soon.

But I'm not sure where you're going with this comment or how you're reading what I posted, because you should know I've held all along that I don't think he was intending on his elbow hitting EP in the head. After watching it several times again, I still don't see him trying to make contact with his elbow, even though he eventually did. To me it just looks like he's trying to make contact with EP, with his upper arm or shoulder, for either separation for the shot or to get an and-1. I know he's a rookie, but from everything we've seen from him he's both a high-IQ player and a high-character player. I played ball for a long-time, and I was also built like Smart (only 6 inches smaller  ) and had Smart's game of bullying my way into the paint. I never remember trying to make separation with any defender with my elbow; that's just doesn't seem natural to me. And Smart is 5x the player I ever was, so it just doesn't seem like a natural behavior to do. That is unless you think he did it on purpose to give EP a cheap shot, which I just don't see. I'm guessing he just misjudged where he was and tried slipping his arm/shoulder in there to create the contact.

IF that is the case and it was accidental, I don't think it should be a flagrant. Do you at least agree with that?

[nickagneta]

As fwf stated earlier, intent is irrelevant. Accident or not your move your arm so contact is made with another players head and you going to get rung up for a Flagrant 2

[jpotter33]

As fwf stated earlier, intent is irrelevant. Accident or not your move your arm so contact is made with another players head and you going to get rung up for a Flagrant 2

Shouldn't be that way. Intent or motive shouldn't be the whole criteria, but it should be a factor. There are ways to judge intent, though it's by no means perfect. At the very least, it should be the difference between an F1 and F2, and you could probably make a case that the clause "excessive" in the language of F2 criteria is really just codeword for intent.

And intent is a factor in these types of situations, too, otherwise Pierce would've been suspended for a year on this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgwewDrvivQ.

I know, I know. Extreme example. 

But it does show at the very least that refs do understand that accidents and incidental contact do sometimes happen. Though none come to mind, I guarantee a ref hasn't called a flagrant before because he knew the contact was accidental, even though it's probably rare.