More Official Talk
by Jeff Clark on Apr 29, 2009 7:18 AM EDT
in Boston Celtics Articles
Email
PrintAs much as I hate talking about officials and good/bad calls, they were central to the story lines last night. So reluctantly I wade into this topic before moving back to the action on the court that I actually enjoy watching and talking about.
In case I wasn't clear before, my official stance on officials is this: NBA refs are at best inconsistent and at worst flat out bad. However, I cannot believe that there is any covert movement to favor one team over another - and even if there was, it would be more likely to favor the Celtics than not (large market, storied franchise, generates interest and ratings). I have always felt that bad calls happen for everyone. Sometimes they cost us a game, sometimes they win us a game. Over the course of a season and usually over the course of a playoff series, things typically even out. Of course there are some exceptions (Kings/Lakers, Heat/Mavs, etc.) but I don't think those are the norm.
Last night might have been a microcosm of that. I'm not going to tick down every good/bad call, but there were two big calls that made a big difference last night.
Ray Allen's Double-Foul
To my eyes, that was a bad call. The ref seemed to react to the reaction rather than the play itself. In other words, he probably wasn't watching Ray and Miller until arms went flailing about and he saw the two tied up, so he just went with the cop-out double foul call. With all that said, it was a bang-bang play and I understand how a ref might miss that in real time. Mark Murphy has the Ray Allen reaction:
But last night’s was particularly grating, considering that he was attempting to get a around a Brad Miller pick while chasing Ben Gordon. The Bulls center hooked Allen with his elbow and was also called for a foul, but obviously remained on the floor.
"It was very subtle, but when you go by guys lock into you, and that’s what he did - he locked into me low, nudged me and I tried to keep going, because I was on my path," said Allen. "They’re setting tough screens that I have to get over. It’s so interesting how Kendrick (Perkins), the whole series, gets hit with offensive fouls and offensive screens the whole day long.
"I’d like to look at it, and see what it looked like from the camera’s point of view, but I don’t know what I did to warrant a foul. How am I supposed to defend? I can’t have a guy attacking me, and then when I put a hand on him being called for the foul."
The Non-Flagrant Call on Rondo
When the play happened, I don't think anyone was thinking flagrant until they saw blood. With that said, the guy was hit in the face, so you always have to look at that closely. Here are the two sides of the story via the Globe:
Celtic coach Doc Rivers agreed: "It was a great foul by Rondo. You always talk about playoff basketball, no layups. Rondo did it on the very last play and it won the game for us."
But Bulls coach Vinny Del Negro disagreed: "You have to go for the basketball and he didn't come near the basketball, he hit the face. I thought it was a flagrant. I agree it's a playoff foul, but it's still a flagrant and you have to call it."
Some schools of thought make the case for not calling flagrants on questionable plays when it is the last play of the game (the thinking being that you don't want a ref deciding the outcome of a game). Some schools of thought say that you have to take into account the intentions of the player. I don't know all the details of the rulebook but the bottom line is that you have to admit that it was a close call and it went the Celtics way.
I understand that fans have every right to complain about the refs. Coaches like Doc Rivers make a point to point the finger at officials because that's what coaches do - they look for any edge they can get.
Officials do make a big, big difference in every game and they are a long way from perfect. With that said, they have a very difficult job because of the rules changes that Stern has put in (to increase scoring, etc.) and they are going to make mistakes, that's a fact of life. So feel free to keep complaining about the refs. Nobody here is going to tell you how to be a fan. I'm just not going to join in very often.
(Note: Commenter DRJ wrote a guest article that was published on Red's Army. Enjoy.)
109 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
There’s no such thing as a flagrant foul when a 170# guy hits 270#. It doesn’t happen in November, it’s not happening in late April, it’s certainly not happening with two seconds to go in game 5. It was an attempt by Rondo to wrap up Miller, which happens all the time except that Miller got his fool head in the way.
Question; if Miller could not have stayed in the game, who would have shot the FTs? I know Miller wouldn’t have been able to return if the game went to a second OT, but given how groggy he was, might it have not been a bad idea for the Bulls to say “he’s concussed, he’s got to come out” and have someone else shoot them? I know the rule USED to be that the opposing team could pick from ANYONE suited up (hence, Perk’s two shots against Indiana his second season), but I thought they changed that rule to the C’s being able to just pick from the guys on the floor. You could tell when Miller stepped to the line, he was hurting; REALLY hard to hit free throws when you can’t see straight.
I thought they changed that rule too...
I remember there was a playoff game a few years ago—I’m gonna say against the Pacers—where Orien Greene ended up getting picked by the Pacers to take a couple key free throws down the stretch. It seemed crazy that an ice-cold, end of the bench guy would be taking shots like that in an NBA playoff game. Of course, I’m pretty sure he bricked them both.
I don’t know if I believe the announcers last night but it sounded like the rule hadn’t changed. It should.
rule hadnt changed
if youre too injured to take ft’s on a personal foul, you cant return and the other coach can choose anyone on the team to take the ft’s. if it’s a flagrant and you are too injured to return, your coach can choose anyone on your team to take the fts. thats why the bulls wanted it to be a flagrant so bad; miller was clearly too injured to be out there, and they couldve gotten gordon to take the ft’s
Not quite accurate...
For a Flagrant 1, the opposing coach still picks who shoots your FTs.
For a Flagrant 2, the coach of the injured player picks.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
Is it still “anyone in uniform,” or is it limited to the guys who were on the floor at the time of the foul?
For a Flagrant 1, the opposing coach has to pick somebody on the bench — they can’t pick somebody on the floor.
For a Flagrant 2, the injured player’s coach can pick anybody — on the floor or on the bench — to shoot.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
no, for a flagrant 1, your own coach picks.
they changed the rule in 06-07. here’s the link
http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html
clarification re: 2005 versus Indiana (Game 6)
As D Dub and theBird noted above, it was Perk who took those shots rather than green. Also important to note is that Tinsley (who had committed the foul) was not charged a flagrant, and Pierce (the would-be shooter) was not unavailable due to injury – he had been ejected due to picking up his technical for elbowing Tinsley after the play (probably his lowest moment as a Celtic). Tinsley’s foul was a personal.
Not sure how that changes the situation, but it makes plenty of sense that the rule in that instance would make it the opposing coach’s choice – given that the Celtic who should have been shooting had caused his own absence from the game rather than injury due to foul.
-sw
The best of the 2008-09 Boston Celtics is still yet to come. Believe.
by Steve Weinman on Apr 29, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Imagine if it was in reverse...
… and Miller had hit Rondo on a drive like that. Rondo would have gone flying across the floor, and we’d all be calling bloody murder. The NBA shouldn’t determine fouls based on the size of the participants.
So, yeah, it was a flagrant foul, under the current rules. However, there have been plenty of missed calls to go around, so I don’t think either side can complain.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
by Roy_Hobbs on Apr 29, 2009 7:35 AM EDT reply actions 4 recs
We can argue about whether the size of the participants SHOULD matter or not, but the way the refs called that play was consistent with how they always call that. Rondo KNEW he could get away with a hard foul and they weren’t going to call a flagrant, ergo, it was a smart play on his part to make damn sure Miller couldn’t connect (absolute worst case would have been an and-1).
Bulls fans seem to forget that even if it WAS called a flagrant, Miller still missed that free throw, so they still would have needed to make a shot in the last 1.0 seconds (I know there were 2.0 seconds on the clock when Miller stepped to the line; if it would have been advantageous for the C’s, that would have been 1.0 seconds; that’s why you fight all year for homecourt!)
why shouldn't that matter?
the point of even having a rule against flagrant fouls is to prevent injuries and players getting hurt, to ensure players try to make a play on the ball as that’s the least likely scenario where an uncessary injury might occur.
a smaller man like rondo doing what he did has a far lesser chance of injuring miller, then vice versa, hence it should be called a flagrant foul more often when a big man commits the same flagrant act as a little man.
the reffing has been consistently horrible this year for all teams. i must admit there is the lebron machine who is exempt from fouling and must not be breathed on. there needs to be some kind of structural change in how the game gets called. the charge vs. the offensive blocking call has gotten so far out of hand it is ridiculous.
I don’t agree the foul was flagrant. He was trying to make a play. NBA officials don’t call the face scrape at all, so why call an attempt to stop a drive flagrant?
Ray Allen’s sixth foul was an absolute abomination. He’s trying to fight through an obvious hold by Brad Miller, and he gets a foul? Ridiculous call, so bad that it deserves a reprimand for the official from the league office.
Homervision exemplified - Rondo headhunting from behind is OK, but Allen's foulout deserves a reprimand ???
Rondo is 2 steps behind the play and swings for the head. Obviously flagrant, no question.
As we have seen over and over in this series, it was quite likely that the Bulls would have scored if awarded the ball (as they should have been.)
Doc must smile ear-to-ear when he sees Joe DeRosa on the court, he’s been instrumental in tainted Celtics wins before…
by nba is the worst on Apr 29, 2009 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions
I think we’re very, very lucky that that was not a flagrant. I think it should have been. Rondo wasn’t close to the ball, and he hit Miller HARD in the face in an act of desperation. It honestly looked like Miller was concussed when he was trying to shoot those free throws. I felt bad for him.
That said, the calls against Ray Ray were absolute BS, so I guess I agree with Jeff that in the end things often even out.
by theham on Apr 29, 2009 7:56 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I know, we could have closed the game a bit earlier, 2 refs looking at it and they both missed it :(
by thatswhatshesaid23 on Apr 29, 2009 9:01 AM EDT up reply actions
IF there had been no attempt to get at the ball I would agree it was flagrant but to me it appears that Rondo made an attempt to swipe at the ball and in so doing he came across Miller’s face. Rondo has no reputation for trying to hurt guys and in fact if you can find a guy who’s been knocked to the floor more than Rondo I’d like to see him. It was a hard foul no question but I don’t see intent to hurt and I think you need that in order to call a flagrant in that situation. Dwight Howard on the other hand clearly tried to hurt Dalembert last night by throwing an elbow at his head . Those are 2 completely different situations and I think when compared to each other they show why one was flagrant and one wasn’t.
Please, Rondo was WAY BEHIND THE PLAY
Intent, I guess the refs have to be psychic in order to call a game according to the rules.
You homers would be calling for a league inquiry if this play had happened in reverse and the Celts had lost.
Truth!
by nba is the worst on Apr 29, 2009 9:12 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Im still calling for an inquiry on the twenty BS calls against the Celtics that preceded the Rondo foul
Why was Ray not in the game again? Oh yeah, two absurd calls where there was barely an contact. Karma’s a bitch. Celts in 6.
Hanging your hat on a flagrant foul not being called
is a pretty weak statement by the Bulls. This type of foul did not even exist until a short while ago, and everyone knows that in the playoffs, the intensity and physicality are increased which will mean more contact. As good and physical as NBA players are, if you attempt to not let a driver score without giving an and 1, you are going to have to foul fairly hard. If that last play was called flagrant, a rule which has drastically changed the NBA, in many cases for the worse, then basically you are legislating out of the game any ability to take away a layup. Hard fouls have always been part of the playoffs, asking/hoping to get that kind of call at the end of a hard played game, on what was clearly not given with any intent to harm, is a real stretch.
Would the Bulls have bitched so loudly had Miller made both free throws? Try the mirror first guys. Miller complaining that the Celts have been taking head shots all series, when he freely moves on every screen and bumps every guard when he hedges out on picks? Mike Gorman commented early in the 4th that “Miller is looking to start trouble out there” with his physical play, Gorman, not Heinsohn, long before the call at the end. Yet Miller is the one to start complaining how physical it has been all series? He has absolutely benefited the most from that, and even had a chance to tie the game but blew it.
i think they were most mad about it
because if it were called a flagrant they couldve had gordon shoot the ft’s. miller was clearly injured, but if he couldnt shoot the ft’s on just a personal foul the celtics get to choose who shoots it (hellllllo aaron gray). on a flagrant though, if a guy is too injured to return, chicago could choose anyone on the team to shoot the ft’s.
Wrong
Miller would have still had to shoot the foul shots had it been a flagrant foul. If he was unable to shoot them, the Celtics would have been able to nominate someone else from the Bulls to shoot them.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Apr 29, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
It depends...
If it was deemed a Flagrant 2 (very unlikely), the Bulls would have selected who got to shoot. On a Flagrant 1, the opposing team would pick.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
is that right?
abbott said in truehoop today that if it was any flagrant the bulls would get to choose, and i thought that was the case. anyone care to go look it up??
Abbott is wrong...
I looked it up before making my post. It’s in Section IV here:
http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_12.html?nav=ArticleList
Check out the difference between IV(a)(2) vs. IV(b)(2). Abbott should check his source material; his statement is wrong, and it’s irresponsible for him to write it.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
wow i just noticed that you're an editor here
that’s real professional calling abbott irresponsible when you were using the wrong info
I've read your posts on Blog-a-Bull...
… where you previously admitted you were wrong on this issue. I wouldn’t get too high-and-mighty calling anybody out for a mistake, then.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
comment (singular)
and i realized my mistake immediately and recanted it. if you had been reading my comments (plural) you would notice that i’ve been saying here and on BaB all day that your own coach chooses who to shoot on a flagrant 1.
it's not a big deal though
i was just venting above because so many people had been telling me i was wrong on that all day
Abbott was right, I was wrong...
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
Rondo's flagrant doesn't wipe out an eleven point Bulls' lead
Poor defense and bad decisions by the Bulls did that in the fourth. The Bulls should have been able to hang on, especially after Allen fouled out (a couple of those were questionable), and never have let it come down to two shots by a punchy Brad Miller.
That being said: Rondo was three feet from the ball and raked Miller across the face. That should have been a flagrant.
"Wait, just let me listen." - Scottie Pippen
looked to me like he was reaching for the ball
missed, and his follow-thru hit miller in the face. if you believe this, there is no way it’s a flagrant. This happens weekly in my rec league.
if you believe he intentionally hit miller in the face, then yes that was a flagrant.
simple as that.
read. the. rules.
“unnecessary contact.” if you want to argue on that definition that it wasnt flagrant that’s fine and you have a good argument. intent is irrelevant and is only considered in upgrading from a flagrant 1 to a flagrant 2. but maybe next time the nba revises the rulebook theyll consult with your adult rec league
thanks for the sarcams bud
but if you’re going for the ball there is no such thing as unecessary content. any contact that occurs was necessary in order to try and get to the ball.
by WillyBeamin on Apr 29, 2009 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions
So by your standard, it doesn't matter if a player isn't close enough to possibly get the ball
he was so far behind on the play it was physically impossible to get ball.
To an unbiased observer, your argument lacks any merit.
by nba is the worst on Apr 29, 2009 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions
if the ball is two feet away from where he hit
there is quite an argument that can be made that the contact was unnecessary
Necessary?
Rondo went for the ball, actually knocked it out of Miller’s hands, and then, with his follow through, slapped him in the face.
As for the contact and whether it was ‘necessary,’ answer me this: is it ‘necessary’ to win? Because, Rondo’s play on the ball was a necessary attempt to prevent Miller from getting an easy two. The only way you prevent the easy two is to do what Rondo did..and since winning is necessary (or else why play) the contact was also necessary.
by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Apr 29, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
not sure what play you were watching
but Rondo definitely didn’t touch the ball. Miller air-balled the layup after he caught a forearm shiver.
your ‘necessary’ argument is ridiculous. if Ben Gordon was on a fastbreak trailing by 2 with seconds left and he’s tackled by Rondo, they shouldn’t whistle that as flagrant? according to your definition, that play by Rondo would’ve been ‘necessary’ for the Celtics to hold onto the lead, no? you can’t just flagrantly foul anybody to prevent them from getting an easy 2 points because it’s ‘necessary’ to win.
that’s like saying diving for Tom Brady’s knees to injure him is ‘necessary’ for the opposing team to win the game.
Ewing with the step...YES! and the foul!
by Anthony Masons Haircut on Apr 29, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Did you bother to watch the replays?
Talk about zero credibility…
Miller’s head getting snapped back caused the shot to miss, but Rondo was never near the ball.
FACT
by nba is the worst on Apr 29, 2009 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions
curious
I couldn’t tell when the play was happening but when I saw the replay I turned to my husband and said, “They’ll probably assess Rondo a flagrant tomorrow morning.”
But after the non-call-fouls Miller has been getting away with all series, and the way he laughed after Ray Allen got called for that last bogus foul, I just have to go with: KARMA.
My Vote: Not a Flagrant
1) Size of the players does matter. I can’t believe anyone would say otherwise. In Game 4, Noah jumped up and full out landed on Perk’s back – Perk finished with a layup and got 1 shot. If Rose was underneath and Perk jumped up and landed on him the way he was landed on by Noah, Rose would’ve been crushed. Noah made no play on the ball, but since Perk was big enough to absorb the impact it wasn’t that bad. Same here – if Perk had hit Rose like that I would expect a flagrant (and a trip to the ER for Rose). Size matters.
2) Why is someone whose username is “nba is the worst” spending his time writing on a Celtics blog?
3) As the original poster points out – calls go for and against the Celtics all the time. Ray’s 5th and 6th foul were suspect. Perk clearly made at least one foul during the game. Salmons hacks worse than anyone on the court. Rondo made a hard foul. All things even out.
maybe they even out in the long run...
but in a 7 game series between closely matched opponents, an aberration can make all the difference.
Completely different situation - here's why
1. Noah was guarding Perkins, Rondo was not guarding Miller.
2. Noah bit on Perkins’ fake, and jumped. What goes up, must come down. How can you equate a smack in the mouth from well behind a player to landing on someone with no head contact? So what if it had been Rose faking Perk ino the air, there is no unnecessary contact, so even if crushed it wouldn’t be flagrant.
3. My screen name is a meaningless protest against the inconsistent and poor officiating NBA fans have to live with. Yes, calls go both ways, but THIS ONE WAS REVIEWED!
4. Every game DeRosa has officiated involving the Celtics has resulted in a celts victory, with the exception of a Magic win.
by nba is the worst on Apr 29, 2009 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions
officiating
is a travesty. it makes it difficult to watch these games. once in a while a close game is good in spite of the refs, or rarely you don’t notice the refs. game 2 for example was fun to watch. most of the time, though, close games are marred either way by some pig headed ref’s whistle.
they need to do something! i don’t care what it is, but they need to make some sign that they recognize that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. here are my suggestions:
1) add a fourth official
2) add a sideline official who reviews calls on replay and reverse bad calls by giving an extra possession or free throws to the wronged team
3) eliminate charging. give the advantage to the offensive player and make big guys try and block shots instead of take flops
Physical Play
I haven’t seen much mention about how in OT Hinrich grabbed Perkins around the shoulders from behind and basically pulled him to the ground. They never showed a replay and it happened so fast it was hard to tell what exactly happened, but I thought that could’ve been a flagrant as well. The very next play I think or close to it, Pierce hammered Noah (although he definitely made a play on the ball). They were definitely letting them get very physical out there.
Bottom line, there were a lot of calls both teams could gripe about. What’s awesome about this series, is each team and a multitude of players (Gordon, Rose, Allen, Pierce, Rondo, Salmons, Perk, you name him) keep coming back and making great plays.
And I will add: while NBA officials can be very frustrating, I have to begrudgingly agree with Stern, as he always says, that they have the “best officials in the world”. Every other level of officiating I experience always seems to make me think: well, I guess the NBA guys aren’t so bad after all. Maybe that’s like a backhanded compliment, but it’s a tough game to call and when I know there are so many things my team could do better over the course of a game, it’s hard for me to get upset at the officials or stay upset for very long. (Although I still get rankled thinking they pick on Perk, lol).
Surprising that you think that
Remember, this play was reviewed, and resulted in Miller needing stitches…
by nba is the worst on Apr 29, 2009 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions
they weren't reviewing the foul
they were reviewing how much time was on the clock.
can they even review flagrants? If I remember they revered brad millers ejection against baby without use of replay, they just got together and talked about it.
by WillyBeamin on Apr 29, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions
They can review flagrants, and I think they actually did use the tape for the eventually rescinded ejection of Miller. I don’t think they can review it for a flagrant if it’s called a regular foul though. Just like they couldn’t use replay to say Gordon wwas out of bounds before the foul on his 3 by Tony Allen; they were just checking to see if he was behind the line.
So needing stitches = a flagrant?
About a month ago big baby got hit in the head with an elbow and required 10 stitches. There wasn’t even a foul called on the play. Too bad your Bulls could not hold on to a 4th quarter, 11-point lead.
Come on Everyone...This is nothing new.
Go back and review tapes of lakers/Celtics in 80’s…last night was mild compared to that.
As for the Rondo foul..Had he continued and dragged Miller down by grabbing his shoulders…That is a Flagrant… A simple slap to the side of the face while trying to reach for the ball/arm, to stop a last second tieing shot…is not a flagrant foul. How about all the swiping which goes on that guys get poked in the eyes?? Same scenario.
there was no intent by Rondo to injure Miller. NBottomline: Bulls never should have been in this position. A 11 point lead and the ball with less than 7 minutes to should have been enough. Bottom line their inexperience and inexperienced coaching hurt them.
How about the two airballs thrown up by Pierce and Allen?? No fouls called?? When was the last time you saw Allen throw up a airball??
The thing that drives me crazy...
…is how the announcers are always lobbying for flagrant fouls or clear path fouls. Every time I hear an announcer say “that should be a clear path foul!” I want to put a shoe through the TV. We get it. You know what a clear path foul is. Congratulations.
I sympathize that fans would rather watch a breakaway dunk than a couple of foul shots (which I assume is why the rule is there), but the rule doesn’t work—it doesn’t stop players from fouling.
Same thing with flagrants. I’m all for punishing players for trying to hurt each other. Fine. Throw them out of the game. But trying to “judge intent” is crazy! How can you tell if a defender was going for the ball and just missed or if he was going after the man? Is the point of the rule to stop Rondo from trying to keep Miller from scoring there? Cause that rule’s not working either then.
I swear the only reason these rules exist is to give the announcers and fans something to get outraged about…
The rules have changed since the 80s - refs should follow the rules!
I don’t see why it bothers you that the announcers would like to see the officials call the game according o the rules.
I know I would love to see them apply the rules consistently.
Bottom line, obviously a flagrant under the rules, intent has nothing to do with it being flagrant, just severity.
And, regardless of previous bad calls, that one meant the ball game…
by nba is the worst on Apr 29, 2009 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
What's The Big Deal
Perk blocked the shot anyway after coming all the way from the corner to defend Gordon.
"I don't come to play, I come to WIN"--Larry Bird
"Criminally Negligent Officiating"--Tommy Heinsohn
right. The bulls would have had to make free throws amnd get the ball back with no time left. Its over done deal it happened like it happened. Next.
if the tables were turned I would have felt the same way, if that were Perk going for the layup
Hypocrisy is unbecoming
And kind of sad, really.
Who among the voters that this wasn’t a flagrant would have the same opinion if a Celtic player was fouled from behind in exactly the same situation, and the Celts had lost the game?
Be honest…
by nba is the worst on Apr 29, 2009 10:51 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I would have
Intent may not matter but your kidding yourself if you dont think the refs take that into consideration. I dont beleive he was going for his head. Now if he pushed him from behind or tried to pull him down then there should have been a flagrant. This was the worst officiated game in the series by far.
BTW Gordon moved his pivot for on that lean in shot. ahouldn’t have counted
Honestly, I’ve felt the officiating has been even-handed more or less, certainly hasn’t detracted from my enjoyment of a bonkers first round series. Of course I was furious when Miller’s Game 4 ejection was (wrongly) rescinded, and when Allen was fouled out with over 6 minutes remaining on touch fouls and non-calls (Something that would never happen to James or Wade or Bryant…) But I’ll also admit that Rondo’s play was likely a flagrant, and MUST be heart-wrenching for Bulls fans.
Now what I really want to know is how do we get a gun-for-hire like yourself over on Blog A Bull or Fear the Sword to confront other teams fans?
by The Walker Wiggle on Apr 29, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
The officiating's been even-handed at least,
which is nice to see … but the problem with it is that it’s been stupid. Like, there’s a LOT of missed calls [on both ends]. Can’t cont on both hands.
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
I would have thought it was a flagrant.
I would’ve been happy it wasn’t called, but I would’ve thought it was a flagrant. :P
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
What amazes me
… is that it seems many fans think it’s OK that the bad calls even out over a season, and maybe over a series (doubt the latter, but whatever). It’s like a comedy of errors out there, and that’s “ok”? It’s “just part of the game”? Y’all are living in a Kafka novel. So beaten down you think down is up.
Without a Doubt
That was a flagrant. But no way was that a breakaway foul on Scal on Sunday either.
by The Real Large James 2 on Apr 29, 2009 11:45 AM EDT reply actions
TAllen
Despite the screw up on the 3-point foul (Did Gordon step on the line?) I thought Allen brought great defensive energy. As did Stephon.
by The Real Large James 2 on Apr 29, 2009 11:47 AM EDT reply actions
You dont call a flagrant there
He didnt blatantly hit the guy. It wasnt a pull down. Just a hard foul. Its all on Miller, who a) airballed the layup before contact; and b) missed his free throws.
Besides, the refs owed us for about 15 bull**** calls prior to that. If they didnt foul Ray out on two plays where he barely made contact the Bulls wouldnt have even been in the game that late. SO cry me a river, Bulls fans.
Again, did you actually watch the replays?
the foul came before Miller released the ball, and was hard enough and unexpected enough (since Rondo was so far behind the play) that it completely altered the shot.
If you follow the rules, OF COURSE you call a flagrant there…
by nba is the worst on Apr 29, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Rondo came from the side
Number one.
Two: by the rules, it has been decided by the NBA – NOT a flagrant. You can keep repeating it all you want. The outcome of the game (and series) will remain the same. Doesnt matter how many angry messages you leave on Celtics message boards!
The series isn't over yet, you know.
[A prediction: it’ll go to 7 and the Bulls will lose from Ray Allen shenanigans. But there’s still one or probably two games left to play.]
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
Well, you heard wrong.
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
After game 4
… the refs were seen leaving with their families, and members of their families were seen wearing Bulls paraphernalia.
bull lost
not one the last play. they lost because they gave up an 11 point 4th qt. lead.
i voted no… i’d like to think i’d vote no if i where a bulls fan.
Indeed
Celtics fans will need it when they talk about conspiracy theories anointing LeBron as the next superstar.
That Steve Nash is exactly the same as Kirk Hinrich, but worse.
by NBA Observer on Apr 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT
by Ozzie Montana on Apr 29, 2009 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Amazing.
Not a flagrant? You guys are kidding.
What chance did Rondo have at making a play on the ball? ZERO percent.
Wow.
But....
I’d probably see it though green tinted glasses if I was a Celtics fan too.
Only natural I guess.
Karma!
Miller shoulda been tossed after he hit Baby in the face!! Why is there no talk about that anywhere? It’s just funny to me how everyone focuses on the Rondo play now. It was sweet Justice seeing Miller miss that free throw!
Because he didn't hit Baby in the face.
Watch a replay.
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
Are u blind??
.. You must be! Either that or just hate the celtics like Mike Breem! HE CLEARLY TOUCHED BABY WHEN HE RETALIATED!!! I SAW THE PLAY! and it was even was more obvious and blatant when it happened live. KG was suspended for something much weaker then that earlier in the season!
DRJ
I don’t agree with your opinions (they seem a bit extreme to me) but cheers to you for putting them down in an article and getting it posted – nice job
"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" Henry V
There is no consistency in officiating
So expecting a flagrant to be called on the final possession of an OT game is just ridiculous, it was never going to happen, especially not for the 7th seed on the road. That’s never been how the NBA works.
As a Bulls fan, I’m more concerned with how, after Perkins fouled out on Sunday afternoon, he wasn’t whistled for a single foul, and the extreme disparity in how Rondo and Rose are officiated.
That Steve Nash is exactly the same as Kirk Hinrich, but worse.
by NBA Observer on Apr 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT
Case in point
Every fan of every team has complaints.
It's the nature of the game
It’s too fast-paced to always get the right calls. I don’t care about a few missed calls here and there, the only thing I’ve ever wanted is consistency. If Perkins can set moving picks and ignore the 3 second rule, then let him do it the whole series, and let Noah do the same thing. Instead they pick and choose who to go after, like Noah in Game 2, Perkins in Game 4.
That Steve Nash is exactly the same as Kirk Hinrich, but worse.
by NBA Observer on Apr 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT
by Ozzie Montana on Apr 29, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions
No more complaints, Celtics fans
That’s the best thing about this non-call. You got the better of a close call that helped you win a game.
For the rest of the playoffs, no more complaints about officiating.
“kings/lakers heat/mavs”
How can you claim that those games arent the norm? Did you know those games were being fixed when you were watching them? Were the bad calls in that game so outlandish that they clearly made it apparent that it was a fixed game more so than calls in any of these games that you refer to as “the norm” ?
Just saying…
dont join in the ref bashing, but stop throwing the whole “refs dont lose games” mantra in everyones face.
Maybe I'm in the minority
A post over at redsarmy made me think…. Maybe fans don’t want the reffing to change. Maybe they like things the way they are, because:
(1) It gives them something to talk about long after the game.
(2) It gives them a ready-made excuse for losing. I like to think I can tell the difference between games we deserve to lose and those stolen by the refs, but I can see that many fans use the refs as an excuse for EVERY loss.
(3) It’s part of the game… what can you get away with? what won’t the refs see? That’s the key question actually… IS IT REALLY PART OF THE GAME? Is that what we want?
I hold firmly to the opinion that if referee errors and bias are really part of the game, then this is a game I need to get away from. But others may disagree. Maybe they do. Maybe I’m in the minority, wanting as-close-to-perfect refereeing as possible…
I agree, and support your point of view
I would love to see better officiating. Kennedy should never ref celts games in the playoffs, J.Crawford never the Spurs, and Delaney never the Lakers. Common sense, if only the NBA had some…
by nba is the worst on Apr 29, 2009 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions
"Some schools of thought say that you have to take into account the intentions of the player."
How can one person know another person’s intentions? Did Rondo leave a diary entry about the foul?
Diaries are passe
..but as for his blog/Yardbarker/Twitter/Facebook/MySpace…who knows?
:-D
In all seriousness, agreed, of course, CI.
-sw
The best of the 2008-09 Boston Celtics is still yet to come. Believe.
by Steve Weinman on Apr 29, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
i don't understand why "intent" keeps getting brought into it
intent is absolutely and completely irrelevant.
Ewing with the step...YES! and the foul!
by Anthony Masons Haircut on Apr 29, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions
It does get rather frustrating after a point, doesn't it?
-sw
The best of the 2008-09 Boston Celtics is still yet to come. Believe.
by Steve Weinman on Apr 29, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
haha true
when you’re a Knicks fan like me (unfortunately). you have to keep yourself enertained while watching two teams that you hate, so i’m glad i have something to talk about. regardless of whether it was a flagrant or not, i think we’d all agree that this series has been a classic.
Ewing with the step...YES! and the foul!
by Anthony Masons Haircut on Apr 29, 2009 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions
It sure has
I’d tell you “I feel for you” on the Knicks, AMH, but as a native New Yorker and devout NYK hater for life (I’d be pushing purple-and-gold if we ever had to witness another Lakers-Knicks finals)…it’s hard for me to ever summon up too much sympathy. :-D
That being said, it’ll help to laugh at the University of Central Florida for the next few years, won’t it?
-sw
The best of the 2008-09 Boston Celtics is still yet to come. Believe.
by Steve Weinman on Apr 29, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions
i thought it was florida international?
i could be wrong though. and either way, there’s not much of a difference
I'm a complete bonehead sometimes
It’s definitely FIU.
Chalk that one up in the “Embarrassing Gaffes For SW” Department.
-sw
The best of the 2008-09 Boston Celtics is still yet to come. Believe.
by Steve Weinman on Apr 29, 2009 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions
And I should say thanks for clarifying, Cal
Glad someone was paying a bit more attention to detail there than I was.
-sw
The best of the 2008-09 Boston Celtics is still yet to come. Believe.
by Steve Weinman on Apr 29, 2009 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions
you know it really sucks
because i was so psyched about it originally being an IU grad. but yeah, i’m definitely not rooting for him at FIU.
Ewing with the step...YES! and the foul!
by Anthony Masons Haircut on Apr 29, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on CelticsBlog
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: Miami Heat vs. Boston Celtics
- The 10-man rotation, starring the Flaming Lips singin’ about the Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Philadelphia 76ers? Gone till November
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: Miami Heat vs. Boston Celtics
- Metta World Peace wishes everyone a happy Labor Day on Memorial Day
