He was called for the milder of the two kinds of flagrants. Who thinks that was a horrible call? Tommy Heinsohn for one. Doc Rivers and Armond Hill are two more. However, is there anyone not on the Celtics payroll who can muster outrage that the foul was called a flagrant? Especially when Zaza Pachulia had been called for a flagrant earlier in the game, for stopping a layup with a somewhat analagous play to Kendrick Perkins' face?
And, here's where it gets tricky: There are a zillion examples of NBA players risking injury to the other team. The Celtics are not alone in that, but those kinds of plays are especially noticeable from this team and, I bet that thesis would find, more common.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_ ... n-the-ball
The league just rescinded the flagrant foul and that was the reason Rivers blew his top and was ejected, a sequence that changed the game in Atlanta's favor.
http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball ... ds_fl.html
Apparently Mr. Abbott, someone besides people on the Celtics payroll thought it was a terrible call (though they probably weren't outraged). The refs are given some discretion on making calls so the league overturning it tells you that it was not close call.
