Marcus Smart's "ejection"

[jpotter33]

A. Sherrod Blakely ?@SherrodbCSN  15m15 minutes ago
The #NBA will dole out no additonal punishment to #Celtics  Marcus Smart after ejection in Sunday loss to Orlando, per league source.

I'm really surprised they didn't downgrade it to a Flagrant 1. I'm pretty sure this means they don't know what to make of this either. If they thought it was intentionally and maliciously thrown, they would've supended him a game more than likely. If they thought it was intentional but not maliciously thrown, they would've downgraded it I would think.

[kozlodoev]

A. Sherrod Blakely ?@SherrodbCSN  15m15 minutes ago
The #NBA will dole out no additonal punishment to #Celtics  Marcus Smart after ejection in Sunday loss to Orlando, per league source.

I'm really surprised they didn't downgrade it to a Flagrant 1. I'm pretty sure this means they don't know what to make of this either. If they thought it was intentionally and maliciously thrown, they would've supended him a game more than likely. If they thought it was intentional but not maliciously thrown, they would've downgraded it I would think.

It was intentionally and recklessly thrown, but it didn't create much contact. I can see how they can could have gone either way with this, not particularly surprised.

[jpotter33]

A. Sherrod Blakely ?@SherrodbCSN  15m15 minutes ago
The #NBA will dole out no additonal punishment to #Celtics  Marcus Smart after ejection in Sunday loss to Orlando, per league source.

I'm really surprised they didn't downgrade it to a Flagrant 1. I'm pretty sure this means they don't know what to make of this either. If they thought it was intentionally and maliciously thrown, they would've supended him a game more than likely. If they thought it was intentional but not maliciously thrown, they would've downgraded it I would think.

It was intentionally and recklessly thrown, but it didn't create much contact. I can see how they can could have gone either way with this, not particularly surprised.

I really don't see the reckless part at all, but, again, I generally don't agree with flagrant foul calls no matter who they're called against. I am generally surprised though that so many people here see it that way.

I think the flagrant foul criteria is ridiculously vague: unnecessary contact committed by a player against an opponent.  "Unnecessary contact" can be so many things that it's not even helpful. But the NBA wants it that way so that the refs have the power of discretion and interpretation over what is and what is not a flagrant in differing circumstances.

[jpotter33]

So for those who believe the call was warranted, do you believe these ones below are warranted, too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RqhC9aUwkw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxFe0i8RgcU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8OS4yUR-3A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rE3ru2Qt-k

Honestly, I'm not sure if I think any of these should br flagrant fouls. Most of these are just bad circumstances where people are going for the ball and the recipient just ends up landing badly or accidentally getting hit in the face. To me, flagrant fouls should reflect ill-will or malicious intent, not some abstract term of "unnecessary" contact.

[DarkAzcura]

Yeah, I don't see how this is reckless either. I know our commentators can be homers at times, but I have to agree with them here. Guys like Harden and Lebron do a similar move 10x a game. Putting out your elbow to create contact is pretty common in the NBA, and I agree that the flagrant rules are pretty vague when some other ref could have just as easily called that a defensive foul had it in been a Harden or a Lebron. Flagrant 2's and elbows to the head are usually an automatic suspension because they are usually reckless and intentional. This clearly was not reckless. Throwing the elbow was intentional, but again, it happens in every single NBA game if you have one of those players that power their way to the rim.

[kozlodoev]

I really don't see the reckless part at all, but, again, I generally don't agree with flagrant foul calls no matter who they're called against. I am generally surprised though that so many people here see it that way.

He threw an elbow at someone's head. How is that not reckless?

I think the flagrant foul criteria is ridiculously vague: unnecessary contact committed by a player against an opponent.  "Unnecessary contact" can be so many things that it's not even helpful. But the NBA wants it that way so that the refs have the power of discretion and interpretation over what is and what is not a flagrant in differing circumstances.

It is, though, generally pretty well understood how it's called in practice -- although it's pretty hard to define, hence  the fluid formulation.

[kozlodoev]

Honestly, I'm not sure if I think any of these should br flagrant fouls. Most of these are just bad circumstances where people are going for the ball and the recipient just ends up landing badly or accidentally getting hit in the face. To me, flagrant fouls should reflect ill-will or malicious intent, not some abstract term of "unnecessary" contact.

That chop with the arm(s) swinging down that you can see on Walker and Sullinger's fouls is an automatic flagrant. If you don't realize this, you aren't watching the NBA

[fairweatherfan]

Honestly, I'm not sure if I think any of these should br flagrant fouls. Most of these are just bad circumstances where people are going for the ball and the recipient just ends up landing badly or accidentally getting hit in the face. To me, flagrant fouls should reflect ill-will or malicious intent, not some abstract term of "unnecessary" contact.

"Ill-will" and "malicious intent" are far more abstract than whether contact was a natural part of a basketball play or not.  That's why they've been removed from definitions of flagrant fouls over the years; because it's basically impossible to consistently establish intent, so judgments of intent are heavily dependent on the biases of the person evaluating the play.  Definitions should rely on observable behavior, not assumptions about the mindset of the player engaging in it.

[jpotter33]

Honestly, I'm not sure if I think any of these should br flagrant fouls. Most of these are just bad circumstances where people are going for the ball and the recipient just ends up landing badly or accidentally getting hit in the face. To me, flagrant fouls should reflect ill-will or malicious intent, not some abstract term of "unnecessary" contact.

That chop with the arm(s) swinging down that you can see on Walker and Sullinger's fouls is an automatic flagrant. If you don't realize this, you aren't watching the NBA

You're making a descriptive claim saying how things  in the NBA.  I'm making a normative claim saying I don't think they  be that way. I mean, I think Sullinger's foul and Walker's foul specifically should not be flagrant.

The problem with the current criteria is both that it is vague and it isn't consistently called. For example, if Gibson or Morris had not ended up on the floor, they would be common fouls. People swipe down all of the time, but it's only called when it looks bad and the guy falls down to the floor. However, that's not part of the criteria determining those calls. Excessive contact only refers to F2 calls, so I don't see how "unnecessary contact" can be a reliable criteria for flagrant 1 calls.

Harden's kick to James' groin - that's a flagrant 1 to me for not being a basketball play.

Artest's elbow to Harden's head - that's a flagrant 2 to me for not being a basketball play and for being excessive.

Smart's trying to draw contact for the and-1 move - that's a common offensive foul to me.

He was making a basketball play, where the other two weren't, and I don't think he was trying to elbow EP in the head other than just trying to find contact. That's where I fall in the flagrant foul spectrum.

[jpotter33]

Honestly, I'm not sure if I think any of these should br flagrant fouls. Most of these are just bad circumstances where people are going for the ball and the recipient just ends up landing badly or accidentally getting hit in the face. To me, flagrant fouls should reflect ill-will or malicious intent, not some abstract term of "unnecessary" contact.

"Ill-will" and "malicious intent" are far more abstract than whether contact was a natural part of a basketball play or not.  That's why they've been removed from definitions of flagrant fouls over the years; because it's basically impossible to consistently establish intent, so judgments of intent are heavily dependent on the biases of the person evaluating the play.  Definitions should rely on observable behavior, not assumptions about the mindset of the player engaging in it.

How is unnecessary any better, though? Who determines what is necessary other than the perspective of the ref himself, which inherently contains biases?

I shouldn't have used those terms exactly, but that should be the idea behind a flagrant foul. I would say a basketball-related play is better language, but that's still a judgment call on the intent of the player. Artest's elbow was not a basketball play, but can you unequivocally say Smart's use of his elbow wasn't a basketball play? I don't think you can, because it looked like he was trying to get the and-1, which is a legitimate basketball play.

EDIT: Granted, it was an offensive foul, but he was still making a basketball play, which in my opinion is the difference between a common foul and a flagrant foul

[fairweatherfan]

Honestly, I'm not sure if I think any of these should br flagrant fouls. Most of these are just bad circumstances where people are going for the ball and the recipient just ends up landing badly or accidentally getting hit in the face. To me, flagrant fouls should reflect ill-will or malicious intent, not some abstract term of "unnecessary" contact.

"Ill-will" and "malicious intent" are far more abstract than whether contact was a natural part of a basketball play or not.  That's why they've been removed from definitions of flagrant fouls over the years; because it's basically impossible to consistently establish intent, so judgments of intent are heavily dependent on the biases of the person evaluating the play.  Definitions should rely on observable behavior, not assumptions about the mindset of the player engaging in it.

How is unnecessary any better, though? Who determines what is necessary other than the perspective of the ref himself, which inherently contains biases?

I shouldn't have used those terms exactly, but that should be the idea behind a flagrant foul. I would say a basketball-related play is better language, but that's still a judgment call on the intent of the player. Artest's elbow was not a basketball play, but can you unequivocally say Smart's use of his elbow wasn't a basketball play? I don't think you can, because it looked like he was trying to get the and-1, which is a legitimate basketball play.

Every standard is susceptible to bias, but standards that require assumptions about the mindset of the player are a lot more susceptible than criteria that rely only on the behavior itself.  League office review is designed as a further check on any bias the ref may have.

You can never account for every possibility but the NBA has tried to define specific categories of actions that are never considered a legitimate basketball play, and are going to be treated as flagrants.  Elbows that hit the neck and head are one of those categories.  Does that get applied in a 100% consistent way?  No, but it's a pretty clear standard for this specific type of action.

To be fair I am surprised the foul wasn't downgrated to a Flagrant 1; I know refs sometimes will err on the side of ejection when the game's decided to avoid anything worse happening.   Kinda surprised this didn't go that way.

[Rosco917]

I'm sure someone else must have pointed this out, but if you look closely Payton is stepping on Marcus Smarts foot. He's literally getting in his face while stepping on his foot.

Yeah, I'd say an elbow may have been called for.

Now for the future, Mr. Payton knows when Mr. Smart is breaking away to the hole, he's not a target to abuse. 

[jpotter33]

Honestly, I'm not sure if I think any of these should br flagrant fouls. Most of these are just bad circumstances where people are going for the ball and the recipient just ends up landing badly or accidentally getting hit in the face. To me, flagrant fouls should reflect ill-will or malicious intent, not some abstract term of "unnecessary" contact.

"Ill-will" and "malicious intent" are far more abstract than whether contact was a natural part of a basketball play or not.  That's why they've been removed from definitions of flagrant fouls over the years; because it's basically impossible to consistently establish intent, so judgments of intent are heavily dependent on the biases of the person evaluating the play.  Definitions should rely on observable behavior, not assumptions about the mindset of the player engaging in it.

How is unnecessary any better, though? Who determines what is necessary other than the perspective of the ref himself, which inherently contains biases?

I shouldn't have used those terms exactly, but that should be the idea behind a flagrant foul. I would say a basketball-related play is better language, but that's still a judgment call on the intent of the player. Artest's elbow was not a basketball play, but can you unequivocally say Smart's use of his elbow wasn't a basketball play? I don't think you can, because it looked like he was trying to get the and-1, which is a legitimate basketball play.

Every standard is susceptible to bias, but standards that require assumptions about the mindset of the player are a lot more susceptible than criteria that rely only on the behavior itself.  League office review is designed as a further check on any bias the ref may have.

You can never account for every possibility but the NBA has tried to define specific categories of actions that are never considered a legitimate basketball play, and are going to be treated as flagrants.  Elbows that hit the neck and head are one of those categories.  Does that get applied in a 100% consistent way?  No, but it's a pretty clear standard for this specific type of action.

To be fair I am surprised the foul wasn't downgrated to a Flagrant 1; I know refs sometimes will err on the side of ejection when the game's decided to avoid anything worse happening.   Kinda surprised this didn't go that way.

Yeah, I understand that pretty much any elbow, intentional, malicious, or not, will constitute a flagrant under the current criteria, and it's definitely a standard that has been set. But as you said, they should've looked at this one and saw that it wasn't deserving of an F2.

[kozlodoev]

Smart's trying to draw contact for the and-1 move - that's a common offensive foul to me.

He was making a basketball play, where the other two weren't, and I don't think he was trying to elbow EP in the head other than just trying to find contact. That's where I fall in the flagrant foul spectrum.

You really have to pause to thing about what you've just written before you post it.

Elbowing someone is not a basketball play. Specifically the one where you actually swing an elbow intentionally at someone. Never has been, never will be. Elbowing someone in the head is a particularly dangerous version thereof.

You just don't have to leg to stand on here in rationalizing this.

[nickagneta]

I can't believe that five pages into this thread that this has to be said but "unnecessary contact" is contact created that is not within the natural play on the ball or with the ball.

To create space while taking a layup a natural play with the ball is to raise your arm and push back on the defender. This is a common foul and a natural play with the ball.

Smart's play was far from a natural play with the ball. It was a swung elbow. And it was to the head. That's a flagrant foul every time and flagrant 2 if contact is made to the head of the defender, regardless of intent or injury caused.

I think the league was right to uphold the play and also right to not punish Smart further.



An aside, I was watching the Magic feed of the game and their announcers thought it a definite flagrant but were indecisive whether it was a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2. I think its close but if contact was made to the head, it has to be flagrant 2.