GT-Western Conference Finals Game 1 - Warriors V Rockets

[CanTuna]

They deemed it a flop because Jones didn't touch him. It looked like a foul from that angle. But he didn't exxagerate the foul he just faked it. Good try though from that angle it looked like a missed call

Contact, right leg. Anyway, is he supposed to twist his ankle again or what? He was touched from behind shooting the ball. With his history of ankle-injuries, of course he's turning away and not landing like he normally does. It's called protection. Even if you don't think it's a foul, the fine for flopping is absolutely ridiculous considering the history of how the NBA handled fines for flopping.

But yeah, it's a great message they send. It's okay what Harden, Paul, Griffin and Co. are doing frequently but this play by Curry absolutely needs to be punished, lol.

Yeah that's a good view. There was definitely contact. But if you watch closely you'll see that Jones was runing parralel and away from Curry. The initial contact was created by Curry when he jumped forward and kicked his leg out to create the contact. It was pretty blatant. He looked like he was trying to do a jump-n-jack.

The league officials have the benefit of watching from every angle over and over again and they usually get it right. They sometimes will give you the foul on a leg kick if its in front but the leg kick on the side is just straight up trickster s##t. That should have been a foul on Curry if anything. No call was good but the aftermath was just an extension of the kick with a nice acting job to sale the foul.

[Chris Porter's Hair]

They deemed it a flop because Jones didn't touch him. It looked like a foul from that angle. But he didn't exxagerate the foul he just faked it. Good try though from that angle it looked like a missed call

Contact, right leg. Anyway, is he supposed to twist his ankle again or what? He was touched from behind shooting the ball. With his history of ankle-injuries, of course he's turning away and not landing like he normally does. It's called protection. Even if you don't think it's a foul, the fine for flopping is absolutely ridiculous considering the history of how the NBA handled fines for flopping.

But yeah, it's a great message they send. It's okay what Harden, Paul, Griffin and Co. are doing frequently but this play by Curry absolutely needs to be punished, lol.

This is indeed the angle that shows it is silly to say Curry wasn't touched. Was he fouled? Strictly speaking probably, but I'm okay with this not being called, as this sort of thing happens a lot. Did he embellish? Maybe, but it is odd. Normally if a player does this sort of thing hoping to draw a foul, their next move isn't to jump up and sprint back in the other direction. It almost looked to me like he did what he thought he needed to do to get himself away from the contact and feel safe. But even if I take the completely cynical stance and say, "Yes, it was a pointless, calculated move to try to trick the refs into calling a foul, and he sucks at flopping because he doesn't even know to act outraged and ask for the foul", then I *still* think the fine is weird, because there are FAR more egregious flops that happen all the time without calls being made or fines assessed.

[CanTuna]

They deemed it a flop because Jones didn't touch him. It looked like a foul from that angle. But he didn't exxagerate the foul he just faked it. Good try though from that angle it looked like a missed call

Contact, right leg. Anyway, is he supposed to twist his ankle again or what? He was touched from behind shooting the ball. With his history of ankle-injuries, of course he's turning away and not landing like he normally does. It's called protection. Even if you don't think it's a foul, the fine for flopping is absolutely ridiculous considering the history of how the NBA handled fines for flopping.

But yeah, it's a great message they send. It's okay what Harden, Paul, Griffin and Co. are doing frequently but this play by Curry absolutely needs to be punished, lol.

This is indeed the angle that shows it is silly to say Curry wasn't touched. Was he fouled? Strictly speaking probably, but I'm okay with this not being called, as this sort of thing happens a lot. Did he embellish? Maybe, but it is odd. Normally if a player does this sort of thing hoping to draw a foul, their next move isn't to jump up and sprint back in the other direction. It almost looked to me like he did what he thought he needed to do to get himself away from the contact and feel safe. But even if I take the completely cynical stance and say, "Yes, it was a pointless, calculated move to try to trick the refs into calling a foul, and he sucks at flopping because he doesn't even know to act outraged and ask for the foul", then I *still* think the fine is weird, because there are FAR more egregious flops that happen all the time without calls being made or fines assessed.

Yes if you read above I agree he was touched. But he created the initial contact with his jump-n-jack flop.

[bakesale]

Yes. Because Iguodala played very well. Box score surfing won't give you an idea of how good Iguodala was, or how boneheaded that play by Livingston was. Ariza, per the good breakdown of the game, scored *1* 3pt shot on Iguodala. The rest were on Barnes/Klay. Again led the team in deflections despite being on court for 23 minutes too. I actually look at off-ball stuff, so thus the consistent and drastic difference in how you and I evaluate.

Klay was instrumental in the 2nd Q too.. his play and defense was a big catalyst for the most important run of the game. And he graded out worse than both. Because he botched some plays in crunch time too. But nothing at all compares to the stupidity of Livingston's foul in crunch time.

Like I said those fts he missed were in the crunch and that wide open shot he left Ariza open for changed the game from being a comfortable win to an uncomfortably close one...
By your reasoning 2 crucial **** ups in the 4th should give him - 2 grades, not to mention that he did nothing to stop the swell that led to Houston leaking out to a 16 point lead.

People have the audacity to call klay's shooting inconsistent, I can tell you he doesn't hold a candle to iggy's inconsistent shooting.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Chris Porter's Hair]

Yes if you read above I agree he was touched. But he created the initial contact with his jump-n-jack flop.

They deemed it a flop because Jones didn't touch him.

[FNQ]

Yes if you read above I agree he was touched. But he created the initial contact with his jump-n-jack flop.

So trying to create contact when you're shooting is now flopping? Harden's accountant is going to be a busy man if the NBA is serious about that.

Flopping is faking like you've been hit hard. Steph did stick his leg out, there was contact, and because of that contact, Steph protected himself in a way that wasn't unreasonable. If you want to call it a foul on him, ok. But there's a distinct difference between flopping and that - and the NBA has done absolutely nothing to discourage players trying to generate contact to get to the line. Like I said originally - its a very odd fine.

[Chris Porter's Hair]

Yes. Because Iguodala played very well. Box score surfing won't give you an idea of how good Iguodala was, or how boneheaded that play by Livingston was. Ariza, per the good breakdown of the game, scored *1* 3pt shot on Iguodala. The rest were on Barnes/Klay. Again led the team in deflections despite being on court for 23 minutes too. I actually look at off-ball stuff, so thus the consistent and drastic difference in how you and I evaluate.

Klay was instrumental in the 2nd Q too.. his play and defense was a big catalyst for the most important run of the game. And he graded out worse than both. Because he botched some plays in crunch time too. But nothing at all compares to the stupidity of Livingston's foul in crunch time.

Like I said those fts he missed were in the crunch and that wide open shot he left Ariza open for changed the game from being a comfortable win to an uncomfortably close one...
By your reasoning 2 crucial **** ups in the 4th should give him - 2 grades, not to mention that he did nothing to stop the swell that led to Houston leaking out to a 16 point lead.

People have the audacity to call klay's shooting inconsistent, I can tell you he doesn't hold a candle to iggy's inconsistent shooting.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I think you might be right, and surely there are statistics that could be run to see whose shooting percentage has a wider variance. But there is a big variable here: Klay's inconsistency would be more significant, because he shoots far, far more than Iggy. A regular theme here was that Iggy doesn't even shoot as much as he should. If he takes a single shot every game, and is really streaky, then he'd be inconsistent, but who cares?

[FNQ]

Yes. Because Iguodala played very well. Box score surfing won't give you an idea of how good Iguodala was, or how boneheaded that play by Livingston was. Ariza, per the good breakdown of the game, scored *1* 3pt shot on Iguodala. The rest were on Barnes/Klay. Again led the team in deflections despite being on court for 23 minutes too. I actually look at off-ball stuff, so thus the consistent and drastic difference in how you and I evaluate.

Klay was instrumental in the 2nd Q too.. his play and defense was a big catalyst for the most important run of the game. And he graded out worse than both. Because he botched some plays in crunch time too. But nothing at all compares to the stupidity of Livingston's foul in crunch time.

Like I said those fts he missed were in the crunch and that wide open shot he left Ariza open for changed the game from being a comfortable win to an uncomfortably close one...
By your reasoning 2 crucial **** ups in the 4th should give him - 2 grades, not to mention that he did nothing to stop the swell that led to Houston leaking out to a 16 point lead.

People have the audacity to call klay's shooting inconsistent, I can tell you he doesn't hold a candle to iggy's inconsistent shooting.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

ok.

So the play where Iguodala 'left Ariza', it was 3 on 2, and 2 players were at the 3pt line. He approached the ballhandler, the better 3pt shooter, Terry. It was the right basketball play. You were watching that, right? Or were you just aching for a chance to blame Iguodala?

Iguodala missed 2 FTs with 8:29 left in the game. Its hardly the same as fouling someone in the backcourt with a minute to go in a very tight game, where we're up and they're in the bonus. I feel like if I was talking to someone who didn't have it in for Iguodala all the time, I wouldn't have to explain that

[The-Power]

They deemed it a flop because Jones didn't touch him. It looked like a foul from that angle. But he didn't exxagerate the foul he just faked it. Good try though from that angle it looked like a missed call

Contact, right leg. Anyway, is he supposed to twist his ankle again or what? He was touched from behind shooting the ball. With his history of ankle-injuries, of course he's turning away and not landing like he normally does. It's called protection. Even if you don't think it's a foul, the fine for flopping is absolutely ridiculous considering the history of how the NBA handled fines for flopping.

But yeah, it's a great message they send. It's okay what Harden, Paul, Griffin and Co. are doing frequently but this play by Curry absolutely needs to be punished, lol.

Yeah that's a good view. There was definitely contact. But if you watch closely you'll see that Jones was runing parralel and away from Curry. The initial contact was created by Curry when he jumped forward and kicked his leg out to create the contact. It was pretty blatant. He looked like he was trying to do a jump-n-jack.

The league officials have the benefit of watching from every angle over and over again and they usually get it right. They sometimes will give you the foul on a leg kick if its in front but the leg kick on the side is just straight up trickster s##t. That should have been a foul on Curry if anything. No call was good but the aftermath was just an extension of the kick with a nice acting job to sale the foul.

Bottom line is: there was contact. You proved your own initial statement wrong.

The way I see it: Curry noticed someone coming from behind and got touched. Barely, but still. Curry then reacts by turning to the left while his right leg goes to the other side. It's not a kick, though. Whether you see it as initiating more contact or protecting the ankles by not landing normally - this is not a flop by the league's usual standards. Period. Otherwise every time Harden drives to the rim, noticing someone reaching in and then suddenly extending his arms (and, by the way, he happens to be a much better actor who also complains after a no-call, unlike Curry here) it's not a foul and an automatic flop. Or even an offensive foul in your opinion? I mean, in Curry's case there's at least the rational reasoning that he's simply trying to protect his ankles.

I don't even have a problem with the no-call, although you can argue that there is enough contact to justify a foul-call, that Jones is not giving Curry enough space to land and that a lot of fouls are called when the shooters kicks his leg out, sometimes blatantly obvious. But to make an example out of this case is just laughable, it's completely against the policy of the NBA in terms of flopping up to now. It makes you wonder what their current agenda is.

[CanTuna]

Yes if you read above I agree he was touched. But he created the initial contact with his jump-n-jack flop.

So trying to create contact when you're shooting is now flopping? Harden's accountant is going to be a busy man if the NBA is serious about that.

Flopping is faking like you've been hit hard. Steph did stick his leg out, there was contact, and because of that contact, Steph protected himself in a way that wasn't unreasonable. If you want to call it a foul on him, ok. But there's a distinct difference between flopping and that - and the NBA has done absolutely nothing to discourage players trying to generate contact to get to the line. Like I said originally - its a very odd fine.

Okay I'll give you that. You make a legitimate argument. The flop was not in the kick out... it was in the fall. And from that angle it can be argued it was awkward fall that caused the big spill. Personally I believe Curry woul never fall like that if it wasn't to sale the foul. He's just too coordinated. But you can argue it was a result of the foul. Still you can't see every angle.

[CanTuna]

Contact, right leg. Anyway, is he supposed to twist his ankle again or what? He was touched from behind shooting the ball. With his history of ankle-injuries, of course he's turning away and not landing like he normally does. It's called protection. Even if you don't think it's a foul, the fine for flopping is absolutely ridiculous considering the history of how the NBA handled fines for flopping.

But yeah, it's a great message they send. It's okay what Harden, Paul, Griffin and Co. are doing frequently but this play by Curry absolutely needs to be punished, lol.

Yeah that's a good view. There was definitely contact. But if you watch closely you'll see that Jones was runing parralel and away from Curry. The initial contact was created by Curry when he jumped forward and kicked his leg out to create the contact. It was pretty blatant. He looked like he was trying to do a jump-n-jack.

The league officials have the benefit of watching from every angle over and over again and they usually get it right. They sometimes will give you the foul on a leg kick if its in front but the leg kick on the side is just straight up trickster s##t. That should have been a foul on Curry if anything. No call was good but the aftermath was just an extension of the kick with a nice acting job to sale the foul.

Bottom line is: there was contact. You proved your own initial statement wrong.

The way I see it: Curry noticed someone coming from behind and got touched. Barely, but still. Curry then reacts by turning to the left while his right leg goes to the other side. It's not a kick, though. Whether you see it at initiating more contact or protecting your ankle by not landing normally - this is not a flop by the leagues usual standards. Period. Otherwise every time Harden drives to the rim, noticing someone reaching and then suddenly extending his arms (and, by the way, he happens to be a much better actor who also complains after a no-call, unlike Curry here) it's not a foul and an automatic flop. I mean, in Curry's case there's at least the rational reasoning that he's simply trying to protect his ankles.

I don't even have a problem with the no-call, although you can argue that there is enough contact to justify a foul-call, that Jones is not giving Curry enough space to land and that a lot of fouls are called when the shooters kicks his leg out, sometimes blatantly obvious. But to make an example out of this case is just laughable, it's completely against the policy of the NBA in terms of flopping up to now. It makes you wonder what their current agenda is.

I admitted there was contact. I was looking up top at a different angle and did not see it initially. I was wrong. But you also got to admit curry kicked his legs out to the side in an unnatural manner. it was deliberate and intentional. All you have to do is watch Curry shoot 3 when he is open and when he is guarded. He eeps his legs close together when he is open and spreads them out in the direction of the defender when he is guarded. He is very craft and knows exactly what he is doing.

[bballguy50]

A Rockets fan getting worked up over Curry trying to sell contact is hilariously ironic.

[turk3d]

Yeah that's a good view. There was definitely contact. But if you watch closely you'll see that Jones was runing parralel and away from Curry. The initial contact was created by Curry when he jumped forward and kicked his leg out to create the contact. It was pretty blatant. He looked like he was trying to do a jump-n-jack.

The league officials have the benefit of watching from every angle over and over again and they usually get it right. They sometimes will give you the foul on a leg kick if its in front but the leg kick on the side is just straight up trickster s##t. That should have been a foul on Curry if anything. No call was good but the aftermath was just an extension of the kick with a nice acting job to sale the foul.

Bottom line is: there was contact. You proved your own initial statement wrong.

The way I see it: Curry noticed someone coming from behind and got touched. Barely, but still. Curry then reacts by turning to the left while his right leg goes to the other side. It's not a kick, though. Whether you see it at initiating more contact or protecting your ankle by not landing normally - this is not a flop by the leagues usual standards. Period. Otherwise every time Harden drives to the rim, noticing someone reaching and then suddenly extending his arms (and, by the way, he happens to be a much better actor who also complains after a no-call, unlike Curry here) it's not a foul and an automatic flop. I mean, in Curry's case there's at least the rational reasoning that he's simply trying to protect his ankles.

I don't even have a problem with the no-call, although you can argue that there is enough contact to justify a foul-call, that Jones is not giving Curry enough space to land and that a lot of fouls are called when the shooters kicks his leg out, sometimes blatantly obvious. But to make an example out of this case is just laughable, it's completely against the policy of the NBA in terms of flopping up to now. It makes you wonder what their current agenda is.

I admitted there was contact. I was looking up top at a different angle and did not see it initially. I was wrong. But you also got to admit curry kicked his legs out to the side in an unnatural manner. it was deliberate and intentional. All you have to do is watch Curry shoot 3 when he is open and when he is guarded. He eeps his legs close together when he is open and spreads them out in the direction of the defender when he is guarded. He is very craft and knows exactly what he is doing.

Who's going to get called for a foul for leg (or foot) contact? No ref should be calling that and it wasn't called in that instance. And how do you know for sure it was intentional to draw contact (on something not likely to be called, Curry didn't complain when it wasn't)? Why couldn't it have been just an off balance shot (he was in fact fading which tends to get you off balance)?

That call was absolutely ridiculous for someone who is not known to be a flopper and with the exception of the last 11 seconds of the game only had 1 free throw awarded to hi? And yet all these others get away with it (Harden being one of biggest offenders).

[likashing]

"Flopping sucks!"

- Harden

[CanTuna]

A Rockets fan getting worked up over Curry trying to sell contact is hilariously ironic.

I'm not sure what you mean about getting worked up. I could care less about the fine. Rescind it for all I care. I get it this is the Warriors board and some of you got to be homers. I'm just keeping it real.

I come here because I get tired of all of the homerism on clutchfans.com. Over there the theme is you guys are getting away with murder. How you guys are disguising fouls on Harden and disguising illegal screens. I see some of that, I mean that Draymond Screen into ariza was a football play but we got away with a couple of things too.

Just sayin' Curry kicked out intentionally and created the contact. And looking for a little honesty from a few. I'm trying to do the same. Like when I say I know the Warriors are the more talented team. And with Howard injured and not 100% it will be almost impossible to beat you guys. Just keepin it real...

[Coxy]

Yes if you read above I agree he was touched. But he created the initial contact with his jump-n-jack flop.

So trying to create contact when you're shooting is now flopping? Harden's accountant is going to be a busy man if the NBA is serious about that.

Flopping is faking like you've been hit hard. Steph did stick his leg out, there was contact, and because of that contact, Steph protected himself in a way that wasn't unreasonable. If you want to call it a foul on him, ok. But there's a distinct difference between flopping and that - and the NBA has done absolutely nothing to discourage players trying to generate contact to get to the line. Like I said originally - its a very odd fine.

Okay I'll give you that. You make a legitimate argument. The flop was not in the kick out... it was in the fall. And from that angle it can be argued it was awkward fall that caused the big spill. Personally I believe Curry woul never fall like that if it wasn't to sale the foul. He's just too coordinated. But you can argue it was a result of the foul. Still you can't see every angle.

Just adding food for thought, Curry's ankle injury history really plagued him both physically and mentally for a long time, and no doubt is part of his phyche now. It's hard to forget a Raja Bell jumping at you and purposely landing under you to try and **** up your feet and ankles. I believe Curry's reaction is more about the fear of a broken ankle more-so than trying to bait the ref into a call.

[Coxy]

So, who's got Game 2 Game Thread people?? Mylie, Quaz, andy, FNQ, Sleep, Turk, Omni?? Lol.

[floppymoose]

People mean various things by flopping. Curry absolutely twists and falls after a three if he thinks there will be contact, and sometimes there isn't. I'm fine with calling that a flop. The thing is, a fair number of players have done that for years with no fine. Then there is falling down when you take a charge. There is usually some contact, but 95% of the time the defender could have remained standing. That is also called a flop by many. Almost all players do that (and I really admire the few who don't). Then there is falling down after you score a layup in traffic. I truly am not sure if there is any player in the league who doesn't do this.

The weird part about fining Curry is that his falling after a three seldom induces a bad call. I'm all for cleaning up flopping but if I'm doing fines I would target flops that are actually inducing bad calls.

[Coxy]

Some types of flops are actually pretty clever. I hate the leg kick out. CP3's one this season was one of the worst I've seen and it should absolutely be outlawed. I also hate the head lurch when any sort of contact has been made which is Harden's forte, it's just unnecessary. However, the backdown defender flop isn't that bad for mine, because why in the hell should a player be allowed to ram his hip and shoulder into you because he's in the post?

Anyways, it was a silly fine, and I hope they don't get consistent with that sort of fine because the NBA's coffers will be bulging if they do.

[floppymoose]

I'm fairly certain the fines go to charity rather than the nba. That was certainly true in the prior CBA. You don't want the league to have a financial incentive to fine players.