« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Why wasn't McDermots foul considered  (Read 2804 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Why wasn't McDermots foul considered
« on: December 12, 2019, 03:11:31 PM »

Offline rollie mass

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4270
  • Tommy Points: 1233
A flagrant and not just a side out. Outside the fact it was probably accidental I thought hits to the head were called differently..
Logged
Re: Why wasn't McDermots foul considered
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2019, 03:14:04 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Tommy Heinsohn
  • *************************
  • Posts: 25355
  • Tommy Points: 2756
It's a fair question. It was clearly accidental, but I thought standard procedure was to review any hit to the face/head area.
Logged
Re: Why wasn't McDermots foul considered
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2019, 03:14:34 PM »

Offline liam

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 45920
  • Tommy Points: 3340
Quote from: rollie mass on December 12, 2019, 03:11:31 PM
A flagrant and not just a side out. Outside the fact it was probably accidental I thought hits to the head were called differently..

Those refs were so bad last night, that's why....
Logged
Re: Why wasn't McDermots foul considered
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2019, 03:51:57 PM »

Offline johnnygreen

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2428
  • Tommy Points: 309
The refs review far too many calls as it is. There was no need for them to review that play, which was clearly an accident. There was no malice in McDermott picking up his left hand to play defense, and it was definitely not flagrant by any stretch.
Logged
Re: Why wasn't McDermots foul considered
« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2019, 04:10:37 PM »

Offline liam

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 45920
  • Tommy Points: 3340
Quote from: johnnygreen on December 12, 2019, 03:51:57 PM
The refs review far too many calls as it is. There was no need for them to review that play, which was clearly an accident. There was no malice in McDermott picking up his left hand to play defense, and it was definitely not flagrant by any stretch.

I thought the rule was about contact with the head and not about intention...
« Last Edit: December 12, 2019, 05:13:17 PM by liam »
Logged
Re: Why wasn't McDermots foul considered
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2019, 04:28:33 PM »

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13755
  • Tommy Points: 2061
  • Sometimes there's no sane reason for optimism
Intention apparently plays a small part of it. A flagrant is broken down into two categories - a flagrant 1 is contact that is considered unnecessary and a flagrant 2 is contact that is considered excessive.

I assume since McDermott wasn't even trying to do anything contact related that this is where intent plays a part. If Hayward was attempting a lay-up and McDermott slapped at the ball and smashed him in the face or was swinging his arm recklessly, then it likely would been called a flagrant 1. I agree that it could have been called - as the contact was obviously 'unnecessary' - but here he looked to just be putting his arm up to play defense; he wasn't making an active play on Hayward. More just bad luck for Hayward, but at least this one won't keep him on the sidelines.
Logged
Re: Why wasn't McDermots foul considered
« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2019, 04:35:52 PM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15241
  • Tommy Points: 1034
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
Quote from: johnnygreen on December 12, 2019, 03:51:57 PM
The refs review far too many calls as it is. There was no need for them to review that play, which was clearly an accident. There was no malice in McDermott picking up his left hand to play defense, and it was definitely not flagrant by any stretch.
I completely disagree.  I see 1 or 2 reviews per game, that's too much?

As a compromise, let's just have automatic review whenever a player is hit so hard that he needs to leave the game and go to the locker room.
Logged
Re: Why wasn't McDermots foul considered
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2019, 04:56:13 PM »

Offline ImShakHeIsShaq

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7739
  • Tommy Points: 804
That was a flagrant all day and twice on WEDNESDAY! I guess everyone should be able to strike people in the face with a move taught to people to protect themselves. Just make sure you don't make it look like it's intentional to the NAKED EYE! "oops, how did my hand get face level?" people have done less and been called for harsher penalties, a clear blow to the head with no attempt at the ball is a flagrant accidental or not!
Logged
It takes me 3hrs to get to Miami and 1hr to get to Orlando... but I *SPIT* on their NBA teams! "Bless God and bless the (Celts)"-Lady GaGa (she said gays but she really meant Celts)
Re: Why wasn't McDermots foul considered
« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2019, 05:12:43 PM »

Offline liam

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 45920
  • Tommy Points: 3340
Quote from: ImShakHeIsShaq on December 12, 2019, 04:56:13 PM
That was a flagrant all day and twice on WEDNESDAY! I guess everyone should be able to strike people in the face with a move taught to people to protect themselves. Just make sure you don't make it look like it's intentional to the NAKED EYE! "oops, how did my hand get face level?" people have done less and been called for harsher penalties, a clear blow to the head with no attempt at the ball is a flagrant accidental or not!

Amen, TP
Logged
Re: Why wasn't McDermots foul considered
« Reply #9 on: December 12, 2019, 05:14:22 PM »

Offline liam

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 45920
  • Tommy Points: 3340
Quote from: jambr380 on December 12, 2019, 04:28:33 PM
Intention apparently plays a small part of it. A flagrant is broken down into two categories - a flagrant 1 is contact that is considered unnecessary and a flagrant 2 is contact that is considered excessive.

I assume since McDermott wasn't even trying to do anything contact related that this is where intent plays a part. If Hayward was attempting a lay-up and McDermott slapped at the ball and smashed him in the face or was swinging his arm recklessly, then it likely would been called a flagrant 1. I agree that it could have been called - as the contact was obviously 'unnecessary' - but here he looked to just be putting his arm up to play defense; he wasn't making an active play on Hayward. More just bad luck for Hayward, but at least this one won't keep him on the sidelines.

i've never seen McDermott try and play defense before... ::)
Logged
Re: Why wasn't McDermots foul considered
« Reply #10 on: December 12, 2019, 05:14:39 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20090
  • Tommy Points: 1331
My son was at the game and Adam Silver was in the house and saw everything yet did nothing.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »