Flagrant Foul from Rondo on Brad Miller??

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

Brad Miller has spent this entire series getting away with cheap shots and last night he got what was coming to him.  I have zero sympathy for him.  

There's also no way it was a flagrant: Rondo made a last second play on the ball, narrowly missing Miller's arm in his attempt to stop the drive.  The definition of a flagrant foul is 'unnecessary' contact.  Unless I'm missing something, preventing Miller from tying the game is very necessary, unless you don't define winning as necessary.  It was the right call, both technically and karmically.  

[BballTim]

I didn't see the game last night, but looking at that picture of Miller's free throw, did he even hit the rim?

  The first miss hit the rim. On the second shot, the intentional miss, he fired the ball at the backboard about a foot over the rim and from the force of the throw it bounced almost straight off the backboard. No rim, so Celts ball out of bounds.

[Vineet]

I was talking with another guy about this play.  I think in slow motion, it looks like a flagrant foul, also considering the damage to Miller's mouth.

However, in realtime, I questioned whether it was a foul at all.  It wasn't like Miller went flying, or that he got clubbed in the head.  Rondo smacked his face from behind.  Now, I'm no expert, but how does rondo cause so much damage coming from behind with only his hand touching Millers face? I mean a bleeding mouth and messed up teeth come from elbows and punches, not from smacks to the face. 

Then I saw a replay.  Indeed, Rondo does swipe at the face, but the real damage comes at the end. It looks like Miller falls into the elbow of Pierce, right in the mouth.  All of a sudden, he's got a bleeding mouth and claims it's from Rondo's hit.  In actually, he flopped right into Pierce's elbow.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I think happened.

[get_banners]

again, rondo was going for the ball, with the intent of giving a hard foul on miller's arm. it happened in the course of one second. miller moved the ball up quickly, and he's 7 feet tall, so in that one second, rondo's trajectory got thrown off...instead of hitting miller on the arm to make sure the shot didn't get off (what he clearly was doing), he got him in the face. that's not a flagrant. that's a hard foul.just because you get hit in the head doesn't make it a flagrant. that has happened to plenty of our guys (and the bulls, too) this series, and in every basketball game. it happens.
now, my concern (i'm assuming rondo doesn't get suspended, because if he does, something is clearly not right) is miller in game 6. i bet he takes the first cheap shot he can get on rondo. i've always like miller, but he does play dirty sometimes. and he's clearly p---ed about this. i'm also concerned about the refs in game 6 in general. miller and delnegro are talking plenty about the refs...does this mean they give the bulls some leeway to play more physical in game 6? i dunno...personally, i think they're going to be calling the game pretty tight to make sure nothing happens, but i don't trust the refs in general for obvious reasons (and not just related to the celtics).

[Drucci]

What is worrying me is that ESPN and the whole NBA related sites are making a big story of Rondo's foul (along with Howard's elbow) and Truehoop says it was a flagrant foul (I totally disagree). Are you sure that by the rules Rondo can't get suspended but in the worse case get a flagrant 1?

Because I'm fearing that the NBA will decide to give an "example" by suspending both Howard and Rondo, even though the plays were totally different...

[crownsy]

What is worrying me is that ESPN and the whole NBA related sites are making a big story of Rondo's foul (along with Howard's elbow) and Truehoop says it was a flagrant foul (I totally disagree). Are you sure that by the rules Rondo can't get suspended but in the worse case get a flagrant 1?

Because I'm fearing that the NBA will decide to give an "example" by suspending both Howard and Rondo, even though the plays were totally different...

the nba can suspended rondo for a year if it wants to for some strange reason, he's an employee and if they upgrade it to a flagrant 2 (which would be a travesty) they can impose whatever suspension they want.

[Drucci]

What is worrying me is that ESPN and the whole NBA related sites are making a big story of Rondo's foul (along with Howard's elbow) and Truehoop says it was a flagrant foul (I totally disagree). Are you sure that by the rules Rondo can't get suspended but in the worse case get a flagrant 1?

Because I'm fearing that the NBA will decide to give an "example" by suspending both Howard and Rondo, even though the plays were totally different...

the nba can suspended rondo for a year if it wants to for some strange reason, he's an employee and if they upgrade it to a flagrant 2 (which would be a travesty) they can impose whatever suspension they want.

Ugh... Thanks for the news. In my opinion it means that Rondo won't play game 6 but I hope I'm wrong...

[crownsy]

What is worrying me is that ESPN and the whole NBA related sites are making a big story of Rondo's foul (along with Howard's elbow) and Truehoop says it was a flagrant foul (I totally disagree). Are you sure that by the rules Rondo can't get suspended but in the worse case get a flagrant 1?

Because I'm fearing that the NBA will decide to give an "example" by suspending both Howard and Rondo, even though the plays were totally different...

the nba can suspended rondo for a year if it wants to for some strange reason, he's an employee and if they upgrade it to a flagrant 2 (which would be a travesty) they can impose whatever suspension they want.

Ugh... Thanks for the news. In my opinion it means that Rondo won't play game 6 but I hope I'm wrong...

If that goes to a flagrant two from a regular foul call, the league can't officiate itself correctly.

That should be changed to a flagrant one, he gets fined and move on.

[Cs09Champs]

What is worrying me is that ESPN and the whole NBA related sites are making a big story of Rondo's foul (along with Howard's elbow) and Truehoop says it was a flagrant foul (I totally disagree). Are you sure that by the rules Rondo can't get suspended but in the worse case get a flagrant 1?

Because I'm fearing that the NBA will decide to give an "example" by suspending both Howard and Rondo, even though the plays were totally different...

That is bothering me also. I believe in First & Ten on ESPN they were saying how Howard does not have a record of doing stuff like that and therefore should not be suspended. Totally BS!

[moiso]

If a big guy like Miller hit a small guy like Rondo in a similar manner, a flagrant would have no doubt been immediately called.

[LarBrd33]

I don't think you can compare the two.

Howard's foul happened early in the 1st quarter when his team was losing and frustrated.  It happened AFTER a play... and he elbowed the guy in the face as he ran back... clearly a frustration play intended to cause pain and probably something that should be punished.


Rondo's play happened in a crucial point in the game when Boston was winning and needed to stop Brad Miller.   I don't know if he was going for the ball, but I can't say he was intending to hurt Miller or cause unnecessary contact.   A few plays before that, Rondo had to stop a player by wrapping him up with both hands.  I think rondo just wanted to make some contact... any contact... with hopes of disrupting the shot.   Unfortunately he made contact across Miller's face.   But I don't know how you can compare that to Howard.  I can't say Rondo was frustrated.  And Rondo would have had to be a total moron to purposely punch a player on a game-tying shot.  

That's pretty weak if that's a flagrant... and that's why they didn't call it.  

If Perk had wrapped up miller and then physically thrown him to the ground... I'd be with you.   If Rondo had waited until after his shot and then backslapped miller in the teeth on his way back up the court... I'd be with you.   But that didn't happen.

[get_banners]

about the size thing...it matters, but in a different way. in the course of one second, a guy who is 6'1 going to get a 7 footer's arm from pretty far away has a decent chance of missing. tim legler actually pointed this out last night...in a split second, trying to put a hard foul on a guy much bigger than you is tricky, because of the height difference. if miller tried to do the same on rondo, he'd have a better shot of hitting rondo in the arm.

[markketch]

Going for the ball or not?  That *may* have been his intention, but Rondo was waaay off if that is the case.  You have to remember though, intention doesn't mean anything in the rule book - it is the actual, physical action that warrants a call or not.

I thought it was a Flagrant 1 - above the shoulders, hit to the head, no actual play on the ball.

[Taklamar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TzGrzs7-AI

Not sure how you don't call that a Flagrant-1.

[waltzero]

edit: lol good timing, completely unintentional

Then I saw a replay.  Indeed, Rondo does swipe at the face, but the real damage comes at the end. It looks like Miller falls into the elbow of Pierce, right in the mouth. 

All of a sudden, he's got a bleeding mouth and claims it's from Rondo's hit.  In actually, he flopped right into Pierce's elbow.

I read this and went to youtube to review and I am pretty sure you and your pal have nailed it.

TP for you Hawkeye. I knew there was no way the Rondo "hit" was what f$*#ed up Miller.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TzGrzs7-AI

0:27 seconds on that video is about as close as you can get to seeing it.