Why no mention of the JO flagrant?

[CelticG1]

Was that flagrant a bogus call or what? It only led to a 6 point play so I guess it wasn't that big a call

I know people like to be above the ref stuff but what a ridiculous call and because it happened earlier in the game it gets no mention.

It's pretty ridiculous to me how awful the ref's have been but especially with these flagrants and technicals.

We don't get any love with obvious flagrants in the first game and of course get one of our own (but they recinded it so I guess that made up for that) and on our 2 "flagrants" they have gained 5 points and 6 points respectively.


During the game (i was there) i was dumbfounded by the call and I just youtubed it and feel the same exact way.

[PosImpos]

It was a fair flagrant call, I think.  Although it was clearly unintentional, Jermaine totally missed the ball and made contact with LeBron's head, and he wound up before hand.  I think it's reasonable for the refs to call that a flagrant in order to prevent blows to the head from happening often.

It's my understanding that according to the rules the refs are required to call any significant physical contact above the shoulders on a play as flagrant, even if it's not clearly intentional.

[angryguy77]

If this was a flagrant, then Wade should have had a couple this series. Where was the tech for the foul on Davis?

This didn't determine the game, but it didn't help. The heat have been allowed to take cheap shots the whole series

[CelticG1]

It was a fair flagrant call, I think.  Although it was clearly unintentional, Jermaine totally missed the ball and made contact with LeBron's head, and he wound up before hand.  I think it's reasonable for the refs to call that a flagrant in order to prevent blows to the head from happening often.

It's my understanding that according to the rules the refs are required to call any significant physical contact above the shoulders on a play as flagrant, even if it's not clearly intentional.

Wow really?

His arm brushed off against his head. How many times have we seen Pierce's headband fly off from stuff like that and half the time it's not even called a foul, let alone a flagrant. The title of the you tube clip said "JO smacks Lebron across the face" or something like that. After reading that I thought "oh well that makes sense" then I watched the play and his arm literally brushes the top of Lebron's head.

Do you really think that if you touch someones head in a basketball game that it should be ruled a flagrant? Is the rule if someone's head gets touched it's a flagrant? I guess we just have a very difference in a opinion when it comes to "significant physical contact"

[PosImpos]

It was a fair flagrant call, I think.  Although it was clearly unintentional, Jermaine totally missed the ball and made contact with LeBron's head, and he wound up before hand.  I think it's reasonable for the refs to call that a flagrant in order to prevent blows to the head from happening often.

It's my understanding that according to the rules the refs are required to call any significant physical contact above the shoulders on a play as flagrant, even if it's not clearly intentional.

Wow really?

His arm brushed off against his head. How many times have we seen Pierce's headband fly off from stuff like that and half the time it's not even called a foul, let alone a flagrant. The title of the you tube clip said "JO smacks Lebron across the face" or something like that. After reading that I thought "oh well that makes sense" then I watched the play and his arm literally brushes the top of Lebron's head.

Do you really think that if you touch someones head in a basketball game that it should be ruled a flagrant? Is the rule if someone's head gets touched it's a flagrant? I guess we just have a very difference in a opinion when it comes to "significant physical contact"

JO wound up, missed the ball, and his extended arms wacked LeBron in the shoulder and his hands hit LeBron's head hard enough to knock off his headband, mid-flight.

I'd say there was enough there for the referees to call it a flagrant -- though I agree that the foul itself wasn't really that bad in terms of the physical contact involved.  Rather, I think the purpose of calling it so strictly is to prevent players from even coming close to hitting players hard above the shoulders.  

Though it sucks when a "cautionary" call like that ends up turning into a 5 point swing for the opposing team in a playoff game, I can understand why the league wants the refs to make that call in that situation.

[IowaGuy]

I agree with the OP 100%.  It was a stupid call and has no business being in the game.  that sort of play happens countless times throughout the course of a season.  guess what happens when you try to block a shot?  Your arm is near the offensive players head, contact will happen.  They just love to protect bron bron and his little homie Dwade. 

The first play of the game guess what happened?  KG in the post, dwade jumps up, winds up, smacks KG right in the head.....personal foul.  no flagrant, no replays, why?  because it is Dwade, he ain't dirty he's just playing tough playoff bball. 

Jump to later in the game, after said 'flagrant' on JO.  Baby's on a break away, gets tackled from behind, TACKLED! and the call.....personal foul on Bibby.  oh, and to top it off we DON'T get a break away foul because he was in the act of shooting.  The refs, although better than the previous 3 games were still terrible.  they have been terrible and unfortunately exactly how i expected them to be.  LBJ & Dwade can do no wrong.

[GreenEnvy]

It was almost as big a BS call as JO's Game 1 flagrant.

He was totally going for the ball and missed, clipping his head.

If you are going to call that a flagrant, you might as well call
every foul that knocks someone's headband off one.

Are the Celtics now 0-4 in flagrant foul calls this series? Two phantom ones on JO and two non-calls against Pierce? What a joke.

[kozlodoev]

JO wound up, missed the ball, and his extended arms wacked LeBron in the shoulder and his hands hit LeBron's head hard enough to knock off his headband, mid-flight.

No, he actually got him on the head pretty solid.

It's still funny though that Miami is the more physical team, and all the flagrant calls are going on the Celtics.

[mgent]

It was a fair flagrant call, I think.  Although it was clearly unintentional, Jermaine totally missed the ball and made contact with LeBron's head, and he wound up before hand.  I think it's reasonable for the refs to call that a flagrant in order to prevent blows to the head from happening often.

It's my understanding that according to the rules the refs are required to call any significant physical contact above the shoulders on a play as flagrant, even if it's not clearly intentional.

Wow really?

His arm brushed off against his head. How many times have we seen Pierce's headband fly off from stuff like that and half the time it's not even called a foul, let alone a flagrant. The title of the you tube clip said "JO smacks Lebron across the face" or something like that. After reading that I thought "oh well that makes sense" then I watched the play and his arm literally brushes the top of Lebron's head.

Do you really think that if you touch someones head in a basketball game that it should be ruled a flagrant? Is the rule if someone's head gets touched it's a flagrant? I guess we just have a very difference in a opinion when it comes to "significant physical contact"

JO wound up, missed the ball, and his extended arms wacked LeBron in the shoulder and his hands hit LeBron's head hard enough to knock off his headband, mid-flight.

I'd say there was enough there for the referees to call it a flagrant -- though I agree that the foul itself wasn't really that bad in terms of the physical contact involved.  Rather, I think the purpose of calling it so strictly is to prevent players from even coming close to hitting players hard above the shoulders.  

Though it sucks when a "cautionary" call like that ends up turning into a 5 point swing for the opposing team in a playoff game, I can understand why the league wants the refs to make that call in that situation.

It was completely obvious he wasn't aiming for the head though.  LeBron showed the ball, JO went for it, and then LeBron pulled the ball away to protect it before the layup.  It wasn't like he could have hit the ball but just plain missed.

[Lucky17]

It was a fair flagrant call, I think.  Although it was clearly unintentional, Jermaine totally missed the ball and made contact with LeBron's head, and he wound up before hand.  I think it's reasonable for the refs to call that a flagrant in order to prevent blows to the head from happening often.

It's my understanding that according to the rules the refs are required to call any significant physical contact above the shoulders on a play as flagrant, even if it's not clearly intentional.

This. JO cocked his arm back, swung, missed the ball, and struck another player in the head. Letter of the law, that's a flagrant foul.

[PosImpos]

It was a fair flagrant call, I think.  Although it was clearly unintentional, Jermaine totally missed the ball and made contact with LeBron's head, and he wound up before hand.  I think it's reasonable for the refs to call that a flagrant in order to prevent blows to the head from happening often.

It's my understanding that according to the rules the refs are required to call any significant physical contact above the shoulders on a play as flagrant, even if it's not clearly intentional.

Wow really?

His arm brushed off against his head. How many times have we seen Pierce's headband fly off from stuff like that and half the time it's not even called a foul, let alone a flagrant. The title of the you tube clip said "JO smacks Lebron across the face" or something like that. After reading that I thought "oh well that makes sense" then I watched the play and his arm literally brushes the top of Lebron's head.

Do you really think that if you touch someones head in a basketball game that it should be ruled a flagrant? Is the rule if someone's head gets touched it's a flagrant? I guess we just have a very difference in a opinion when it comes to "significant physical contact"

JO wound up, missed the ball, and his extended arms wacked LeBron in the shoulder and his hands hit LeBron's head hard enough to knock off his headband, mid-flight.

I'd say there was enough there for the referees to call it a flagrant -- though I agree that the foul itself wasn't really that bad in terms of the physical contact involved.  Rather, I think the purpose of calling it so strictly is to prevent players from even coming close to hitting players hard above the shoulders. 

Though it sucks when a "cautionary" call like that ends up turning into a 5 point swing for the opposing team in a playoff game, I can understand why the league wants the refs to make that call in that situation.

It was completely obvious he wasn't aiming for the head though.  LeBron showed the ball, JO went for it, and then LeBron pulled the ball away to protect it before the layup.  It wasn't like he could have hit the ball but just plain missed.

Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't really matter whether he was clearly aiming or not aiming . . . he hit him, and the refs deemed the contact above the shoulders was significant enough to make the call.  From what I could see in the replay, I can't disagree with them.

[mgent]

It was a fair flagrant call, I think.  Although it was clearly unintentional, Jermaine totally missed the ball and made contact with LeBron's head, and he wound up before hand.  I think it's reasonable for the refs to call that a flagrant in order to prevent blows to the head from happening often.

It's my understanding that according to the rules the refs are required to call any significant physical contact above the shoulders on a play as flagrant, even if it's not clearly intentional.

Wow really?

His arm brushed off against his head. How many times have we seen Pierce's headband fly off from stuff like that and half the time it's not even called a foul, let alone a flagrant. The title of the you tube clip said "JO smacks Lebron across the face" or something like that. After reading that I thought "oh well that makes sense" then I watched the play and his arm literally brushes the top of Lebron's head.

Do you really think that if you touch someones head in a basketball game that it should be ruled a flagrant? Is the rule if someone's head gets touched it's a flagrant? I guess we just have a very difference in a opinion when it comes to "significant physical contact"

JO wound up, missed the ball, and his extended arms wacked LeBron in the shoulder and his hands hit LeBron's head hard enough to knock off his headband, mid-flight.

I'd say there was enough there for the referees to call it a flagrant -- though I agree that the foul itself wasn't really that bad in terms of the physical contact involved.  Rather, I think the purpose of calling it so strictly is to prevent players from even coming close to hitting players hard above the shoulders. 

Though it sucks when a "cautionary" call like that ends up turning into a 5 point swing for the opposing team in a playoff game, I can understand why the league wants the refs to make that call in that situation.

It was completely obvious he wasn't aiming for the head though.  LeBron showed the ball, JO went for it, and then LeBron pulled the ball away to protect it before the layup.  It wasn't like he could have hit the ball but just plain missed.

Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't really matter whether he was clearly aiming or not aiming . . . he hit him, and the refs deemed the contact above the shoulders was significant enough to make the call.  From what I could see in the replay, I can't disagree with them.

I thought staples for a flagrant call were not going for the ball, intentional injury-causing contact, or excessive contact that sends the player flying.  I didn't see any of those.

I wasn't really arguing about the call anyway, I've seen much worse ones on JO.  I was just pointing out that he was going for the ball, it wasn't just a wild swing that missed.  The ball was where LeBron's head was not a second before.

[kozlodoev]

Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't really matter whether he was clearly aiming or not aiming . . . he hit him, and the refs deemed the contact above the shoulders was significant enough to make the call.  From what I could see in the replay, I can't disagree with them.

Someone hit Pierce on the face in the first possession of the game, and Bibby tackled Davis into the post from behind with little intention to play the ball. Apparently the refs deemed something else in these situations.

[kozlodoev]

I thought staples for a flagrant call were not going for the ball, intentional injury-causing contact, or excessive contact that sends the player flying.  I didn't see any of those.

Flagrant 1 is called for "unnecessary" contact.  Flagrant 2 is "unnecessary and excessive".

[PosImpos]

Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't really matter whether he was clearly aiming or not aiming . . . he hit him, and the refs deemed the contact above the shoulders was significant enough to make the call.  From what I could see in the replay, I can't disagree with them.

Someone hit Pierce on the face in the first possession of the game, and Bibby tackled Davis into the post from behind with little intention to play the ball. Apparently the refs deemed something else in these situations.

I never said the refs weren't inconsistent, just that the call seemed justified in this case.