RealGM

Suppose a flagrant foul had been called on Rondo. Suppose Miller had gone 1-2 from the line. Then the Bulls would have inbounded the ball, down 1, with 2 seconds remaining.

With all due respect to Ben Gordon, that's not a high-probability win situation.

We still would've won cause Miller still would've missed. The Garden was rocking last night and only the most clutch can make end game free throws in "The Jungle."

SonicYouth34 wrote:We still would've won cause Miller still would've missed. The Garden was rocking last night and only the most clutch can make end game free throws in "The Jungle."

With a flagrant, Miller wouldn't have been the only consideration. 2 shots and then the ball, down 2.

I dont think it wouldve given BG 7 enough time to shoot but wouldnt Brad Miller still get 2 shots after the 1 for the foul?

Theres two games going on in the NBA....one with your opponent and the other with the officials...

Didn't Heinson or somebody say something like that this year?

The officials giveth and then they take it away....it's that simple an explanation or a rationalization...(depending on your point of view)

I saw those clips of the incident from last night too....

Looked to me that Miller's jaw found Pierce's elbow on his way to the floor...

I don't think Rondo bloodied him?

It was a team effort IMO...

Poor little Brad Miller!...Poor little Chicago Bulls!

Gonna send in my video tapes and my crying towels to the league office!

Give me a break!... this whole thing sounds like a bad soap opera!

if PP and Ray could make those end games FT, we wouldn't be here now.

aboubata wrote:if PP and Ray could make those end games FT, we wouldn't be here now.

This is true...we'd be sitting resting after a sweep...

That shouldn't even have been a flagrant in the first quarter, let alone the most important play of the game.

I think Bulls fans are being selective in what they want called flagrants. I'd advise to go back and look at the tape and they will see more than one play where Celtics players got hit in the head on fast breaks where the chance of getting the ball was pretty small. The big difference was our players didn't start bleeding. Also I thought the play was misleading in thati looked to me like Miller might have banged his head into Paul Pieirce after Rondo committed the foul and that is where the damage occured.

If Hinrich's foul on Perk wasn't a flagrant than either was Rondo's. Hinrich was not making a play on the ball and through the opponent to the ground. Rondo's attempt was certainly desperate but it was a basketball play that just caught Miller in the head. In the end you couldn't really have argued against a flagrant in either situation but I think they were both simply playoff fouls and were called correctly.

Frankly your a bitch if you are crying about not getting a flagrant foul because your 85% FT shooter missed a FT and you needed the ball out of bounds too.

I wonder if VDN and his gang will be fined 25k, just like Doc was after game 4.

Rocky5000 wrote:I wonder if VDN and his gang will be fined 25k, just like Doc was after game 4.

If they don't then Doc knows how to avoid fines in the future. I guess it's OK to whine and complain so long as you send a tape to the league. Doc should send in a tape of the end of Game 4 and ask for his $25k back.

Here's the biggest point you're missing though, more of a NBA rules thing:

--Even though the ref would have probably allowed him to skip shooting the free throws because of the blood/lost tooth, Miller had to take the shots when the regular foul was called because if he didn't, then Doc (the opposing teams' coach) could have chosen any player active for the game (whether it was Linton Johnson, Anthony Roberson, Aaron Gray or any of our other scrubs) to take the shot in Miller's place. Weird rule, but it is in the book.

--However, if it was a flagrant, the whole story changes. Now Vinny gets to choose who takes the foul shots if Miller can't do it (and really, the ref would have probably allowed Miller to pass on shooting them). He could put Gordon on the line, our best FT shooter, who would have likely made both, and then the Bulls get the ball back and are already assured of double OT, and could attempt a game winning shot without any pressure of losing the game.

Huge difference in this situation between a flagrant and a regular foul, especially when a normally 81% FT shooter clearly was in no shape to shoot these but had to because otherwise Doc would have picked one of our cold scrubs to do it.

This discussion seems to be lost except in TrueHoop, Henry Abbott caught this today incidentally.

anorexorcism wrote:Here's the biggest point you're missing though, more of a NBA rules thing:

--Even though the ref would have probably allowed him to skip shooting the free throws because of the blood/lost tooth, Miller had to take the shots when the regular foul was called because if he didn't, then Doc (the opposing teams' coach) could have chosen any player active for the game (whether it was Linton Johnson, Anthony Roberson, Aaron Gray or any of our other scrubs) to take the shot in Miller's place. Weird rule, but it is in the book.

--However, if it was a flagrant, the whole story changes. Now Vinny gets to choose who takes the foul shots if Miller can't do it (and really, the ref would have probably allowed Miller to pass on shooting them). He could put Gordon on the line, our best FT shooter, who would have likely made both, and then the Bulls get the ball back and are already assured of double OT, and could attempt a game winning shot without any pressure of losing the game.

Huge difference in this situation between a flagrant and a regular foul, especially when a normally 81% FT shooter clearly was in no shape to shoot these but had to because otherwise Doc would have picked one of our cold scrubs to do it.

This discussion seems to be lost except in TrueHoop, Henry Abbott caught this today incidentally.

You're actually wrong here anorexorcism and so is Henry Abbott in his blog. VDN would only have been able to choose the shooter if it was called a Flagrant 2. Now that was in no way a flagrant 2 on Rondo. I would say it was a flagrant 1. If that was the case, then Doc would be able to pick the player. Here's the rule.

a. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be unnecessary, a flagrant foul--penalty (1) will be assessed.
PENALTY: ...(2) If the offended player is injured and unable to attempt his free throws, the opposing coach will select any player from the bench to attempt the free throws."

As a Knick fan who hates both teams with a passion and who doesn't give a **** who wins the series I gotta still say that this was an ABSOLUTELY clear case of a flagrant foul. Not only did Rondo clearly not go after the ball , he additionally didn't have ANY chance to get ball on that play. If THIS is not a flagrant foul than I don't think any flagrant foul gets called at all anymore. If smacking someone across the face without any chance of getting the ball doesn't qualify as a flagrant foul than you won't see more than 3 flagrant fouls per season(at most). Anyways, knowing the NBA and the refs they're gonna give some big calls to the Bulls in game 6 (if the game is close). If not then the Celtics might not have the usual home court advantage in a potential game 7(as the refs not giving them benefit of doubt in a potential crucial situation).

Never mind.

DorfonCeltics wrote:

You're actually wrong here anorexorcism and so is Henry Abbott in his blog. VDN would only have been able to choose the shooter if it was called a Flagrant 2. Now that was in no way a flagrant 2 on Rondo. I would say it was a flagrant 1. If that was the case, then Doc would be able to pick the player. Here's the rule.

a. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be unnecessary, a flagrant foul--penalty (1) will be assessed.
PENALTY: ...(2) If the offended player is injured and unable to attempt his free throws, the opposing coach will select any player from the bench to attempt the free throws."

Good catch, as per http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12.ht ... rticleList

On a Flagrant 1, the opposing coach (Doc Rivers) gets to make the choice. On a Flagrant 2, the coach of the play fouled (VDN) gets to choose.

If we're going to talk about what everyone saw on replay then let's just consider the stepping out of bounds leading to 3 free throws that everyone saw from Ben Gordon on replay. The announcers noticed it and the refs could have noticed it when determining where his feet where to see if it was a 3 or a 2. Ya he was behind the line... the out of bounds line. Bad plays happen all game long. Let's not forget the Bulls are out of timeouts then too so hardly a gimme. The Miller half time shot a few games ago when the clock stopped at 1.2 seconds never should have counted in a game that went to OT too. Wah, wah, wah.

Fencer reregistered wrote:

DorfonCeltics wrote:

You're actually wrong here anorexorcism and so is Henry Abbott in his blog. VDN would only have been able to choose the shooter if it was called a Flagrant 2. Now that was in no way a flagrant 2 on Rondo. I would say it was a flagrant 1. If that was the case, then Doc would be able to pick the player. Here's the rule.

a. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be unnecessary, a flagrant foul--penalty (1) will be assessed.
PENALTY: ...(2) If the offended player is injured and unable to attempt his free throws, the opposing coach will select any player from the bench to attempt the free throws."

Good catch, as per http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12.ht ... rticleList

On a Flagrant 1, the opposing coach (Doc Rivers) gets to make the choice. On a Flagrant 2, the coach of the play fouled (VDN) gets to choose.

Interesting. I thought that was just for a regular foul. It says there is an exception too, but it looks like that's only if a flagrant is committed away from the ball.

shackles10 wrote:If we're going to talk about what everyone saw on replay then let's just consider the stepping out of bounds leading to 3 free throws that everyone saw from Ben Gordon on replay. The announcers noticed it and the refs could have noticed it when determining where his feet where to see if it was a 3 or a 2. Ya he was behind the line... the out of bounds line. Bad plays happen all game long. Let's not forget the Bulls are out of timeouts then too so hardly a gimme. The Miller half time shot a few games ago when the clock stopped at 1.2 seconds never should have counted in a game that went to OT too. Wah, wah, wah.

The announcers noticed that he might have been out of bounds. there was no angle where it was clear that he stepped out of bounds on that play.