Flagrant Foul from Rondo on Brad Miller??

[guava_wrench]

Obvious flagrant based on the rules. To the boneheads who would say something like "if it was obvious, they would call it", an obvious violation does not mean it is an obvious call. The refs can't catch everything due to the speed of the game. But based on the rules, hitting a guy in the head like that when you have no play on the ball is a flagrant.

Since it wasn't called a flagrant, are the refs allowed to review the foul? Or do they have to first call a flagrant to review a foul? My understand is the latter, but maybe the people watching on TV can tell me otherwise.

One of many plays were we lucked out with the refs.

[guava_wrench]

Okay, we'll say it was a flagrant...Miller missed his first free throw.  We'll say that he makes his second free throw, for argument's sake.  They're still down by 1 with :02 on the clock.  They still would have had to pull off a crazy shot.  This call by no means decided the game.  

In fact, if Miller makes his free throws, the game is tied.  The game was entirely in his hands and he blew it.  He would have a beef if there was no foul called at all, but you can't cry about not getting a flagrant.  Flagrant fouls are completely up for interpretation anyway.  And I love how he wasn't dizzy until immediately after he missed the free throw.  Give me a break.  He thought that it was hilarious when Ray got fouled out for that BS call in the 4th, which was actually a moving pick, but this was apparently unacceptable.

I will agree that the officiating has been inconsistent on both ends.  But the refs didn't lose this game for the Bulls...they had Game 5 wrapped up with 5 minutes to go in the 4th on a visibly worn and Ray Allen-less Celtics team.  Their complacency and inexperience is what lost it for them.

In general, only losers blame refs for losses.

[soap07]

a. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be unnecessary, a flagrant foul--penalty (1) will be assessed. A personal foul is charged to the offender and a team foul is charged to the team.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12.html?nav=ArticleList

There is the rule. Rondo's contact was pretty clearly unnecessary. Barkley was right, the ball was already out of his hand. There is no way Rondo is going for the ball on that call. The Bulls lost out on that one, just like the Celtics do on other occasions. It's just funny the nerve that our fans have in claiming "conspiracy" theories and other BS.

[GeoDim]

Okay, we'll say it was a flagrant...Miller missed his first free throw.  We'll say that he makes his second free throw, for argument's sake.  They're still down by 1 with :02 on the clock.  They still would have had to pull off a crazy shot.  This call by no means decided the game.  

In fact, if Miller makes his free throws, the game is tied.  The game was entirely in his hands and he blew it.  He would have a beef if there was no foul called at all, but you can't cry about not getting a flagrant.  Flagrant fouls are completely up for interpretation anyway.  And I love how he wasn't dizzy until immediately after he missed the free throw.  Give me a break.  He thought that it was hilarious when Ray got fouled out for that BS call in the 4th, which was actually a moving pick, but this was apparently unacceptable.

I will agree that the officiating has been inconsistent on both ends.  But the refs didn't lose this game for the Bulls...they had Game 5 wrapped up with 5 minutes to go in the 4th on a visibly worn and Ray Allen-less Celtics team.  Their complacency and inexperience is what lost it for them.

In general, only losers blame refs for losses.

Generally true, but I think that if there was no foul called, he should obviously have been upset.  I just don't understand how you can blame the refs for not calling something so subjective, especially when the game is still in your hands.  Just make the [dang] free throws and this isn't an issue.

[get_banners]

a. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be unnecessary, a flagrant foul--penalty (1) will be assessed. A personal foul is charged to the offender and a team foul is charged to the team.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12.html?nav=ArticleList

There is the rule. Rondo's contact was pretty clearly unnecessary. Barkley was right, the ball was already out of his hand. There is no way Rondo is going for the ball on that call. The Bulls lost out on that one, just like the Celtics do on other occasions. It's just funny the nerve that our fans have in claiming "conspiracy" theories and other BS.

i disagree...rondo was going for the ball. miller raised it quickly, and he's 7 feet, so that throws things off in terms of rondo getting his arm vs. his head. guys get hit in the head going in all the time. you usually don't see flagrants called unless they are clearly trying to hurt the player. rondo was trying to foul miller, but again, he just missed the ball. remember, this all happened in the course of one second or so, not in slow motion.

[soap07]

i disagree...rondo was going for the ball. miller raised it quickly, and he's 7 feet, so that throws things off in terms of rondo getting his arm vs. his head. guys get hit in the head going in all the time. you usually don't see flagrants called unless they are clearly trying to hurt the player. rondo was trying to foul miller, but again, he just missed the ball. remember, this all happened in the course of one second or so, not in slow motion.

I'm pretty sure Rondo said in the press conference that he was going for a hard foul.

[Cs09Champs]

i disagree...rondo was going for the ball. miller raised it quickly, and he's 7 feet, so that throws things off in terms of rondo getting his arm vs. his head. guys get hit in the head going in all the time. you usually don't see flagrants called unless they are clearly trying to hurt the player. rondo was trying to foul miller, but again, he just missed the ball. remember, this all happened in the course of one second or so, not in slow motion.

I'm pretty sure Rondo said in the press conference that he was going for a hard foul.

Yes he was going for a hard foul but he was not going for his face (or head). It was not intentional. And it was not a flagrant at all. I've watched the replays over and over again this past 30 mins and it is not a flagrant. The officials made the correct call.

[soap07]

Yes he was going for a hard foul but he was not going for his face (or head). It was not intentional. And it was not a flagrant at all. I've watched the replays over and over again this past 30 mins and it is not a flagrant. The officials made the correct call.

For the umpteenth time, as both Barkley and Kenny noted, the intent doesn't matter. It's the final result. Regardless of whether it was intentional.

[kheeko]

o well as wrong as this sounds brad miller deserves it, hes been playing dirty out there it caught up to him

[PosImpos]

o well as wrong as this sounds brad miller deserves it, hes been playing dirty out there it caught up to him

This was my feeling as well.  He's acted pretty goony out there, last game it was the retaliation against BBD (which he should have been thrown out for tbh) and then this game it was getting locked up with Ray Allen unnecessarily, causing Ray to foul out (absurd call) and then walking back to the bench clearly pleased with himself about it.

I can't say that I feel sorry for him getting smacked in the mouth a bit.

[kheeko]

And I love how he wasn't dizzy until immediately after he missed the free throw.  Give me a break.

****

[Steve Weinman]

For the umpteenth time[...]the intent doesn't matter.

Well said.

-sw

[angryguy77]

Yes he was going for a hard foul but he was not going for his face (or head). It was not intentional. And it was not a flagrant at all. I've watched the replays over and over again this past 30 mins and it is not a flagrant. The officials made the correct call.

For the umpteenth time, as both Barkley and Kenny noted, the intent doesn't matter. It's the final result. Regardless of whether it was intentional.

And what those two clowns says matters why? The rule may state that intent doesnt matter but your fooling yourself if the refs dont take that into consideration as they should btw. The way teh league has gone its like a bunch of skirts running around with a ball out there

[angryguy77]

i disagree...rondo was going for the ball. miller raised it quickly, and he's 7 feet, so that throws things off in terms of rondo getting his arm vs. his head. guys get hit in the head going in all the time. you usually don't see flagrants called unless they are clearly trying to hurt the player. rondo was trying to foul miller, but again, he just missed the ball. remember, this all happened in the course of one second or so, not in slow motion.

I'm pretty sure Rondo said in the press conference that he was going for a hard foul.

1) that rule is wide open to interpretation and I dont see how you can say 100% that he wasnt going for the ball. 2) Rondo saying he was going for a hard fould doesn't mean he wasnt going for his arm. 3) I seriously doubt that Rondo is dirty enough to take a swing at a guys head intentionaly. He has shown no evidence of being that king of player.

The only stretch of time that I thougt the Bulls were getting jobbed was in the first 8 minutes of the game. We did get away with a lot of contact. But it paled in comparison to what the refs did for a job to us.

I dont believe in a conspiracy, but I woll raise an eye to ray getting hammered on. The one guy that has been hitting the clutch shots against the bulls the whole series has a target on his back. Makes me think that a bulls advance would make for a better story thus more $ for the league. It's odd to me how he gets called for thos last 3 fouls. Very suspicious.

[Atzar]

Yes he was going for a hard foul but he was not going for his face (or head). It was not intentional. And it was not a flagrant at all. I've watched the replays over and over again this past 30 mins and it is not a flagrant. The officials made the correct call.

For the umpteenth time, as both Barkley and Kenny noted, the intent doesn't matter. It's the final result. Regardless of whether it was intentional.

I actually disagree with this to an extent.  If this were the case, then Ariza and Bynum would have missed games for hospitalizing Rudy Fernandez and Gerald Wallace, Paul Pierce would have been tossed for knocking Danny Granger's teeth out, etc.  Sometimes things just happen.  Basketball - especially playoff basketball - is a physical game, and fouls are part of it.  For example, Rajon Rondo fouled John Salmons earlier in the game to prevent a layup by wrapping him up, blatantly making no play on the ball.  Was this a flagrant?  Of course not, he was just preventing the layup.  The scenario was the same, but the results were different so everybody is up in arms over it.  It wasn't a punch or an elbow like Dwight Howard, and it wasn't 'extracurricular' like Ray's shot to Varejao.  It was a hard foul given during the course of a play with the intent to deter a layup, and hopefully will be reviewed as such.

Incidentally, I think Rondo may luck out based on the fact that DHoward's case will likely be reviewed at the same time.  Dwight will almost certainly miss a game, but seen side by side Rondo's foul won't seem nearly as bad. 

With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if Rondo misses Game 6.