ESPN's Marketing of Rondo's "Flagrant Foul"
by afflatus on Apr 30, 2009 10:15 AM EDT
Email
PrintAs I was in the middle of the message board debates about this issue yesterday, I realized I was so deep into debating, so deep into explaining what I thought about the play. Defending Rondo for what he had to do. Trying to explain logic into the minds of an emotionally charged, frustrated groups of people (Boston haters and Bulls fans).
Then, as I had a chance to sit back and catch my breath, I realized how stupid this is. How did this get so big? I will be the first to admit that if the shoe was on the other foot, I would be begging for a flagrant, but that's besides the point. Under normal circumstances, fans would pretty much focus on wondering what their teams should do to win the next game. But this wasn't happening. You could read Bulls fans calling for Rondo's head. And Celtics fans calling them sore losers for saying such things. Why does this debate feel like it is more than whether or not it is flagrant foul?
I'm calling for both sides to sit back and realize that we have fallen into the ESPN marketing trap. To paraphrase the summary of how this was presented to us:
"Dwight Howard threw and elbow, which is equivalent to a punch, could be suspended, in the meantime, Rondo swiped Brad Miller in the head, was it flagrant foul?"
Chicago fans, read it again, see how angry it makes you? Now take out the first part. See the difference? You are probably still angry, but the argument will be strictly about whether it was a flagrant or not.
Putting highlights of both incidents, which are totally different, made it look like Dwight Howard threw that elbow on Brad Miller. It's bad enough for Bulls fans that their team lost, but for ESPN to make it look like what Rondo did was on par with what Howard did certainly adds fuel to the fire of an already angry fan base. Instead of arguing that they should have gotten the ball back, you had people focused on the blood that was drawn. Instead of wondering why he was not fined, you had people demanding the Bulls go headhunting to make a statement.
ESPN knew that Rondo's play did not warrant a suspension. ESPN knew that Rondo did something out of desparation, not frustration. ESPN knew the move was not premeditated. ESPN knew there was no intent to hurt anyone. But why not make it look like that by putting it on par with Howard did?
This is irresponsible journalism. The Bulls fans are now looking for Rondo's head, although that should not be the case, the United Center will be demanding it. Although, the Bulls players know in their minds they should focus on winning, can such a young team control their emotions by not playing into the demands of the fans?
Bulls fans may be thanking ESPN for bringing more life to this than warranted, But if Rondo or any Celtics player is put on the ground badly, the United Center erupts in cheers as the player carried off the court. I hope you all are smart enough to know that all these PTI, Around the Horn, and Spotscenter that argued for Rondo will be the first to expose and turn on the Bulls fans. I guess more ratings for them.
I wonder if ESPN will take responsibility for fueling that fire. This has been a great series. Focused on amazing performances and clutch shooting. Now, ESPN has turned it into: "Look for Bulls to hunt for Rondo's head"
Be respectful and keep it clean. Thanks.
19 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So you’re chastising ESPN for saying what everyone in America outside of Massachussetts believes? I’m no Bulls fan, but dude, it was a flagrant. The intent of the hit is irrelevent, he still hit the guy. It wasn’t a play on the ball, he was nowhere near the ball. It doesn’t warrant suspension, but it was still a blown call, like so many others in that game. I’m a Magic fan, but Dwight deserved his suspension. It was a dumb, goon-ish move on his part for swinging his elbow. I can admit that as a Magic fan. Is there one Celtics fan that will admit that it was a flagrant?
I don’t think the issue is whether or not the foul’s flagrant, which many people on this board disagree about. I think the issue is whether or not we should care so much/make such a big deal out of it. I happen to think that this whole thing is ridiculous, even the ruckus made of Dwight’s foul. Hard fouls happen all the time, but this is first time I’ve seen in on ESPN’s homepage for 24+ hours as THE breaking story. The issue is not what ESPN is saying, but how much they’re saying it.
I am a Celtics fan who BELIEVES it was Flagrant.
No, All I am saying is the ESPN is portraying Howard’s actions on Par with what Rondo did. I should have mentioned that I believe what Rondo did Warrants a flagrant 1. But they way ESPN portrayed it, it was as if he deserved a suspension as well.
I think a lot of Celtics fans do admit it is a flagrant...
and most think he did what he did to save the game. If it’s a blown call – that’s the ref’s fault. The media has taken advantage of this to fuel the Boston-Chicago fire and now everyone’s calling for Rondos’ head, not the refs’ heads.
You should check the poll on this site again, then. They do not.
Also, you might want to read Stu’s comments. And the refs. And Rondo. Seems like everyone outside of Illinois believes it wasnt a flagrant, actually.
Why should anyone admit it?
The league had a full chance to review the play, frame by frame, and they determined it was not a flagrant. If it was only a blown call, that is fully reversible under the rules, it would have been. If the league had determined it was in fact a flagrant upon review, and all Celtic fans were still moaning, you would have a point. But “believing” it, or “thinking” it has nothing to do with it. I can think the world is flat I suppose if I want, but the facts state otherwise. This is not an issue that is up for opinion at this point. The league made the rule, and the league that made the rule, reviewed the play and determined it was not a violation of said rule. Whether an Orlando, Chicago, or Boston fan “thinks” it was or wasn’t at this point is irrelevant.
They showed no reluctance to change the Howard foul.
They didnt change the Rondo one because it wasnt a flagrant. Plain and simple. To the prairie dog, one track mind bulls fans that means it must be some great conspiracy! I find this endlessly hilarious.
So then your mind is like a goldfish's?
“I’m no Bulls fan, but dude, it was a flagrant.”
"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."
That's a quote, by the way.
Obviously not me.
From the first post in this, which you’re indirectly referring to with your comment.
"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 think
what he is trying to say is that ESPN is just trying to fan the flames to get more web traffic and therefore more advertising revenue. They are just trying to piss people off to get activity on the site, not reporting news or making actual commentary.
They do this all the time. I am really surprised myself that people fall for that. So many people say “don’t respond to trolls”, but then get “trolled” by ESPN and other mass media outlets.
Rondos flagrant foul.
It’s just a matter of which side your rooting for. If the same thing was done by a Chicago player the majority of the Celtic fans would be saying it was flagrant. It’s like watching the game with announcers from opposite sides they have a different interpretatation. Chick Hearn and Johnny Most God rest their souls saw the games differently. 3 refs have done nothing but hurt the game and slow it down. The replay is great when it’s a call that will decide a game but going to 3 refs just insures you have some refs who shouldn’t be doing N.B.A. games especially with all the teams with expansion over the years. Good refs are hard to find. Like a fan that isn’t biased. GO CELTIC’S I’M BIASED!!!!
by Celtics9Lakers2 on Apr 30, 2009 11:04 AM EDT reply actions
This is a terrific post.
I wrote something much the same on Blogabull – the marketing of this kind of thing is pathetic. I don’t think it’s debatable that it was a flagrant – and apparently 79% of viewers agreed with me, according to the ESPN poll – but the more important thing is not to let a great series transform into an NBA marketing campaign. It’s about the players, not the refs or the economics. Well done.
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
my best friend hates the Celtics and actively roots against them just to irritate me. He’ll cling to any little foul or perceived “Boston favoritism” and use it as an excuse for why Boston won. This play should have been right in his wheelhouse.
He watched that game and thought nothing of the play. He saw the replays and thought the whole thing was a joke. He heard the sports radio guys in Seattle talking about Rondo’s flagrant and he wanted to call up and scream about how moronic it was. It wasn’t a flagrant. That game should have been about Chicago choking an 11 point lead and Pierce nailing 5 shots in a row… not about some crybaby Chicago fans clinging to nothing.
If Rondo's foul was flagrant, than so was Hinrich's on Perk
Look, the bottom line is the actual rule book is so vague that borderline fouls can be debated to the nth degree as to whether they were flagrant or not, and you’ll never know. All I know is that Rondo prevented a lay-up (though probably unnecessarily, because if you watch the replays Perk had recovered in time to swat the shot). Did he go for the ball? Personally I don’t think so. However, how is what he did any different than Hinrich tackling Perk? Hinrich made no attempt to block Perk’s shot, he just bear-hugged the guy!
Bear-hugging:
Now the same as hitting someone in the face
"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."
it was a flagrant foul period. of course after review the league will say it was not one because they cant take it back and make them replay it over. Rondo made no attempt at the ball and came across his face. I am not a bulls or celtics fan but that was without questio a flagrant 1 at best.
by fundamentalsofthegame on May 1, 2009 7:01 PM EDT reply actions
Actually, No
If you read the news, it was ruled not a flagrant. So you can stamp your feet all you want, but it was NOT a flagrant.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Video: Will Ferrell introduces the Hornets
- Video: Kevin Durant is rapping for real
- Jeremy Lin starts for the Knicks, lives in his brother’s living room, ‘has his own couch’
- Larry Bird would like to team with Kobe for the win, LeBron for the fun
- Will Ferrell will run the player intros at Wednesday’s Bulls/Hornets game
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
