Flagrant Foul from Rondo on Brad Miller??

[markketch]

Miller hitting Pierce at the end of the play has nothing to do with Rondo's motion or the foul call. It is the motion that is the foul, not what happens afterwards (incidental contact).

[Cman]

about the size thing...it matters

Just have to call you out on that.
 

[crownsy]

Miller hitting Pierce at the end of the play has nothing to do with Rondo's motion or the foul call. It is the motion that is the foul, not what happens afterwards (incidental contact).

right, we get that, just discussing how miller got so busted up.

It's pretty clear most of us think it was an uncalled flagrant 1. thus, they should upgrade it and fine him per procedure, but to advocate a flagrant 2 and thus a 1 game suspension is above and beyond. He clearly didn't have a pre meditated intent to injure, just prevent a layup (which he had to do)

We'll see what they do, but i would hope they do the logical and correct thing, call it a flagrant 1 and move on.

[idrinkdetergent]

I just want to know what they do the suspense is killing me!

[RAcker]

ESPN is killing us right now with that story on their main page.

[Roy Hobbs]

Henry Abbott of Truehoop's analysis is pretty annoying.  First, he states:

If it had been called a flagrant, Vinny Del Negro could have specified the shooter of his choice (in the playoffs, Ben Gordon, John Salmons, Derrick Rose and Tyrus Thomas are all over 80%), and the Bulls would have had the ball after the shots.

This is absolutely wrong.  If the play had been a Flagrant Foul 2, VDN would have picked who to shoot.  If it had been a Flagrant Foul 1, and Miller couldn't shoot the FT attempts, *Doc* could have picked anybody off of the Bulls bench to shoot.  See here.  A blogger as respected as Abbott should take the two extra seconds to get things right.

The other problem I have with Abbott is this statement:

With a flagrant, the Bulls would have been favorites to win. Without a flagrant, a blow to the head of the guy shooting for the game is a savvy tactic.

How would the Bulls have been favorites?  Assuming a Flagrant 1 was called, Miller still would have bricked the first free throw.  That means the Bulls would have been down at least one, with a chance at a basket with 2 seconds left.  That gives them a shot, but it certainly doesn't make them favorites.

[Mr October]

As much as i dont want rondo suspended. It was a flagrant foul... That wasn't a play on the ball. And Miller's head got hit. Now is it worthy of a suspension?

I don't think so. There wasn't a big ol' windup. Just a hard foul, and since the head was involved it should have been flagrant 1

[CelticsWhat35]

Henry Abbott of Truehoop's analysis is pretty annoying.  First, he states:

If it had been called a flagrant, Vinny Del Negro could have specified the shooter of his choice (in the playoffs, Ben Gordon, John Salmons, Derrick Rose and Tyrus Thomas are all over 80%), and the Bulls would have had the ball after the shots.

This is absolutely wrong.  If the play had been a Flagrant Foul 2, VDN would have picked who to shoot.  If it had been a Flagrant Foul 1, and Miller couldn't shoot the FT attempts, *Doc* could have picked anybody off of the Bulls bench to shoot.  See here.  A blogger as respected as Abbott should take the two extra seconds to get things right.

The other problem I have with Abbott is this statement:

With a flagrant, the Bulls would have been favorites to win. Without a flagrant, a blow to the head of the guy shooting for the game is a savvy tactic.

How would the Bulls have been favorites?  Assuming a Flagrant 1 was called, Miller still would have bricked the first free throw.  That means the Bulls would have been down at least one, with a chance at a basket with 2 seconds left.  That gives them a shot, but it certainly doesn't make them favorites.

That whole article was bull (no pun intended).  If you hadn't seen the game, you would've thought Rondo took out a gun and shot Miller in the face with Abbot's descpription.

[Cman]

Henry Abbott of Truehoop's analysis is pretty annoying.  First, he states:

If it had been called a flagrant, Vinny Del Negro could have specified the shooter of his choice (in the playoffs, Ben Gordon, John Salmons, Derrick Rose and Tyrus Thomas are all over 80%), and the Bulls would have had the ball after the shots.

This is absolutely wrong.  If the play had been a Flagrant Foul 2, VDN would have picked who to shoot.  If it had been a Flagrant Foul 1, and Miller couldn't shoot the FT attempts, *Doc* could have picked anybody off of the Bulls bench to shoot.  See here.  A blogger as respected as Abbott should take the two extra seconds to get things right.

The other problem I have with Abbott is this statement:

With a flagrant, the Bulls would have been favorites to win. Without a flagrant, a blow to the head of the guy shooting for the game is a savvy tactic.

How would the Bulls have been favorites?  Assuming a Flagrant 1 was called, Miller still would have bricked the first free throw.  That means the Bulls would have been down at least one, with a chance at a basket with 2 seconds left.  That gives them a shot, but it certainly doesn't make them favorites.

Roy, Thanks for pointing this out. Did you email Abbott?  And if so, please post his response.
Thanks again!

[vinnie]

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.

TP for you. My son and I were at the game in a box. We watched the replay at least 5 times and each time we saw Miller fall onto Pierce's elbow and that is when he got hurt.

[Cs09Champs]

Anyone else worried they might change that to a flagrant 2? 

[crownsy]

Anyone else worried they might change that to a flagrant 2? 

ratinaly no, but then again, if you had asked me 3 years ago if i was worried stern was incomptent enough to allow a ref to fix games on his watch, i would have said no too.

Nothing david does suprises me at this point, it just adds to my sadness about how he's running the game.

[Roy Hobbs]

Well, Hollinger gets it wrong, too:

If the foul had been called a flagrant one, on the other hand, Miller could have signed off for the night and let coach Vinny Del Negro choose any Chicago player as his replacement shooter. Almost assuredly, the fill-in would have been Ben Gordon, who shot 86.4 percent during the regular season and has made 85.9 percent of free throws in his career. Gordon would have given Chicago about a 75 percent probability of tying the game.

Wrong again.  I know it gets old hearing it, but it amazes me how many people who get paid to write about basketball for a living repeatedly post things that just aren't true.

[celticinorlando]

wasn't it just the other day fans and the media were telling boston to stop whinning about the refs? miller got what he deserved

[crownsy]

Well, Hollinger gets it wrong, too:

If the foul had been called a flagrant one, on the other hand, Miller could have signed off for the night and let coach Vinny Del Negro choose any Chicago player as his replacement shooter. Almost assuredly, the fill-in would have been Ben Gordon, who shot 86.4 percent during the regular season and has made 85.9 percent of free throws in his career. Gordon would have given Chicago about a 75 percent probability of tying the game.

Wrong again.  I know it gets old hearing it, but it amazes me how many people who get paid to write about basketball for a living repeatedly post things that just aren't true.

knowing the rules is so much work though roy, much better to write inflamitory stuff loosly based on reality to get readers 

TP4U for doing more reaserach than an NBA beat writer.