2013 NBA Playoffs

[Fafnir]

Tony Allen flopping like crazy trying to sell a flagrant foul.  His head didn't hit the floor at all.

I'll point out that Pietrus had his concussion without his head hitting the floor, so I suppose it is possible that there was some legitimate pain.

And whether or not he hits his head is irrelevant to whether or not it is a flagrant foul.

it should be irrelevant but it's not.

If you don't sell it its not flagrant many times.

[Fan from VT]

I think Tony oversold it, but I liked the call. That play should be a flagrant every time.

Many smart people have pointed out that whether or not injury results is a terrible way to determine if a foul is flagrant or not because there are too many pieces of randomness that go into an injury, and unintentional fouls can cause terrible injury, clean plays can cause injury (look at that recent hockey play), and dirty plays can have no injury. So, regardless of the injury outcome, you should call flagrants on intent.

And in this case, TA had a clear open layup, and Ginobili had zero chance to make a basketball play, which would either be a play on the ball or positioning to take a charge. He tried neither, instead aiming clearly for only arm. Additionally, he clearly swiped downward with his follow through, which was the decision by him that made the play have incredibly dangerous potential.

[Fafnir]

I don't like not giving the benefit of the doubt to a player swinging at the ball. Manu missed the ball by a relatively small margin for players moving full speed.

KG/Perk/Howard etc get whacked WAY harder on the arm all the time. But they don't fall so terribly awkwardly so its a normal foul.

What's different than Manu's swipe than several of Marc Gasols hacks at Spurs players arms. He missed the ball by as much if not more than Manu and followed through very hard. The difference is that the contact resulted in a dangerous fall.

That's why it was called a flagrant. That's why most flagrants get called, hence why Tony rolled around on the floor like a dead fish. (I'm assuming he was faking, as was pointed out it is possible to get a concussion via non head contact if your neck snaps just right)

[Fan from VT]

I don't like not giving the benefit of the doubt to a player swinging at the ball. Manu missed the ball by a relatively small margin for players moving full speed.

KG/Perk/Howard etc get whacked WAY harder on the arm all the time. But they don't fall so terribly awkwardly so its a normal foul.

What's different than Manu's swipe than several of Marc Gasols hacks at Spurs players arms. He missed the ball by as much if not more than Manu and followed through very hard. The difference is that the contact resulted in a dangerous fall.

That's why it was called a flagrant. That's why most flagrants get called, hence why Tony rolled around on the floor like a dead fish. (I'm assuming he was faking, as was pointed out it is possible to get a concussion via non head contact if your neck snaps just right)

In last night's case i think it was a flagrant for 2 reasons:

1. Positioning. Manu was 100% beat, and had no chance at making a basketball play, and could ONLY get involved in the play by making contact. I like calling flagrants in those scenarios because when you're beat, you're beat, and I hate fouling to make up for bad defense, both aesthetically because it slows the game and makes it choppy, and because it's unnecessary danger. TA earned the free path to the basket that he had. It wasn't the degree of miss, because I agree that a player who'd had better position could actually try to hit the ball, legitimately miss, and hit someone in the same place. But Manu had zero chance of the ball, and had terrible position (was completely behind him), and his only chance was fouling, and fouling was clearly the intent; there was no attempt at the ball.

2. Follow through. It's one thing to open-palm swipe (preferably at the ball) and hit an arm. But manu had a semi-grip on TA's arms and dragged downward on follow through, which is incredibly dangerous. Had he "slapped," even with the terrible defensive postioning, i'd say no flagrant, but he did a grab+swipe opposite of TA's upward momentum. Dangerous.

[CelticG1]

I only watched it a few times this am on sportscenter but didnt look like manu swiped really looks like he got hold of the wrist and pulled down.

Anyway how about that sure fire hall of famer Manu? Can't believe people actually compare his career to Pierces at times. Its embarrasing. Hes more of a tashun prince than a Pierce

[CelticG1]

I don't like not giving the benefit of the doubt to a player swinging at the ball. Manu missed the ball by a relatively small margin for players moving full speed.

KG/Perk/Howard etc get whacked WAY harder on the arm all the time. But they don't fall so terribly awkwardly so its a normal foul.

What's different than Manu's swipe than several of Marc Gasols hacks at Spurs players arms. He missed the ball by as much if not more than Manu and followed through very hard. The difference is that the contact resulted in a dangerous fall.

That's why it was called a flagrant. That's why most flagrants get called, hence why Tony rolled around on the floor like a dead fish. (I'm assuming he was faking, as was pointed out it is possible to get a concussion via non head contact if your neck snaps just right)

In last night's case i think it was a flagrant for 2 reasons:

1. Positioning. Manu was 100% beat, and had no chance at making a basketball play, and could ONLY get involved in the play by making contact. I like calling flagrants in those scenarios because when you're beat, you're beat, and I hate fouling to make up for bad defense, both aesthetically because it slows the game and makes it choppy, and because it's unnecessary danger. TA earned the free path to the basket that he had. It wasn't the degree of miss, because I agree that a player who'd had better position could actually try to hit the ball, legitimately miss, and hit someone in the same place. But Manu had zero chance of the ball, and had terrible position (was completely behind him), and his only chance was fouling, and fouling was clearly the intent; there was no attempt at the ball.

2. Follow through. It's one thing to open-palm swipe (preferably at the ball) and hit an arm. But manu had a semi-grip on TA's arms and dragged downward on follow through, which is incredibly dangerous. Had he "slapped," even with the terrible defensive postioning, i'd say no flagrant, but he did a grab+swipe opposite of TA's upward momentum. Dangerous.

I can't believe some think it wasn't a flagrant, bizzare.

In any case if it wasn't a flagrant it would have been a clear path foul right? So would have been same result anyway?

By the way if Tony did this to Manu he would instantly be labeled a thug

[PhoSita]

It should have been a flagrant but there's no reason it should have been a flagrant 2.

Manu made a smart play.  Did whatever he could to prevent a poor foul shooter from finishing a play on the break in a close game.  No way should he be ejected for that.

In my opinion a flagrant 2 or a suspension should require clear intent to cause harm to the other player with no attempt at making a basketball play.

For example, if somebody is on the break and you body check them into the stands, or two hand shove them into the stands, that should be a flagrant 2.  If all you want to do is prevent the layup you can wrap them up or grab them to stop them from completing a shooting motion.  A flagrant 2 should be when a player goes above and beyond what is necessary to make a smart basketball play so that it's clear they're just trying to hurt the other guy.

[Fafnir]

*shrug* it was a flagrant because he fell awkwardly and wasn't a big guy.

Maybe some day KG/Howard/etc will get such "protection" when their arms are whacked.

Tons of "blocks" attempts are made by guys who are beat, tons of blocks are made when guys look like they're beat, I hate using "he was beat and out of position" when judging a foul. You're telling players they need to just give up if they're a step behind the ball or they'll be punished.

I get what you're saying on the follow through, but that's not consistently called. The only element you cite that is consistently called is "fall awkwardly and make sure to make a show of it".

[Fafnir]

  No way should he be ejected for that.

He wasn't.

[PhoSita]

  No way should he be ejected for that.

He wasn't.

I'm aware, but people are saying it should have been a flagrant 2, which would be an automatic ejection.

[PhoSita]

Hes more of a tashun prince than a Pierce

I'm embarrassed for you that you think this is a fair comparison.

[Fafnir]

  No way should he be ejected for that.

He wasn't.

I'm aware, but people are saying it should have been a flagrant 2, which would be an automatic ejection.

No one in this thread has so what you were saying didn't make sense.

[PhoSita]

  No way should he be ejected for that.

He wasn't.

I'm aware, but people are saying it should have been a flagrant 2, which would be an automatic ejection.

No one in this thread has so what you were saying didn't make sense.

In last night's case i think it was a flagrant for 2 reasons:

Okay, I see my mistake.  I read that as saying "I think it was a flagrant 2 for these reasons"

[Fafnir]

  No way should he be ejected for that.

He wasn't.

I'm aware, but people are saying it should have been a flagrant 2, which would be an automatic ejection.

No one in this thread has so what you were saying didn't make sense.

In last night's case i think it was a flagrant for 2 reasons:

Okay, I see my mistake.  I read that as saying "I think it was a flagrant 2 for these reasons"

Yup purple monkey dishwasher in action! tp

[PhoSita]

  No way should he be ejected for that.

He wasn't.

I'm aware, but people are saying it should have been a flagrant 2, which would be an automatic ejection.

No one in this thread has so what you were saying didn't make sense.

In last night's case i think it was a flagrant for 2 reasons:

Okay, I see my mistake.  I read that as saying "I think it was a flagrant 2 for these reasons"

Yup purple monkey dishwasher in action! tp

I think you're gonna have to explain that reference to me.


edit: Nevermind, I just looked it up. 

Funny the tricks your mind can play on you.