TrueHoop's take on the Miller-Face-Whack

[chi_hawks_23]

Kush77 wrote:

I guess I'm in the minority when it comes to us Bulls fans. I didn't think the foul was that bad.

As a Bulls fan I wish it would of been a flagrant because it could of helped us win, but I don't think you make that call at that point of the game. I know if it was Rose that hacked Perkins in the face I wouldn't of wanted a flagrant called. Whether the C's would have got the call or not is a different story.

A lot of Bulls fans are furious over this. But I'm not for some reason.

I'm sad they lost the game, but I don't have a feeling of being robbed. Not like this was Hue Hollins or something.

You are right. This was ONE thing. The Bulls did about 4 or 5 other things that lost the game for themselves (crap defense, turnovers, not doubling rose, etc)

 

[??? ??????]

cool007 wrote:

I don't think they would replay just the last couple of seconds with Brad shooting free throws but it would be more appropriate if they did the Overtime (5min) of the game again.

I would love it if they just did Brad Miller's free throws and Bulls with the ball with 2 seconds left.

Or, why not just suspend Rondo 1 game???

If they don't do either, I think it will set a bad precedent in the game, what this will say is - you don't hit somebody in the face in the first 45 or so minutes of the game but when the game is close - at the end, you can do whatever you want- hit in the face, grab face, foul Hard so the guy breaks his teeth/jaw or whatever coz WE ARE NOT GOING TO CALL FLAGRANT ON YOU.

Then point to Bulls/celtics game #5.

If they change it to a flagrant, don't they have to do a replay? Because that changed the entire complexion of the game. Even if the cede that Miller missed two free throws, the Bulls would still have an opportunity to tie or win as they would have a posession. And they'd probably have to replay at least the second Miller free throw, as the strategy would have been to make that if it was a flagrant, and the Bulls were getting the ball on the side.

 

[RC_Skinny22]

I don´t think they will change anything. And honestly I don´t want it, too. That would be bad for the NBA. Also I don´t want to win in that way. The Bulls still have the chance to win the series. Maybe they do. You never know.

I still think the refs should have called a flagrant foul, but I also think that it was not hard enough to suspend Rondo. That wouldn´t be right.

Like a lot of you guys said. We lost the game earlier. What was our biggest lead in OT?

 

[chi_hawks_23]

??? ?????? wrote:

cool007 wrote:

I don't think they would replay just the last couple of seconds with Brad shooting free throws but it would be more appropriate if they did the Overtime (5min) of the game again.

I would love it if they just did Brad Miller's free throws and Bulls with the ball with 2 seconds left.

Or, why not just suspend Rondo 1 game???

If they don't do either, I think it will set a bad precedent in the game, what this will say is - you don't hit somebody in the face in the first 45 or so minutes of the game but when the game is close - at the end, you can do whatever you want- hit in the face, grab face, foul Hard so the guy breaks his teeth/jaw or whatever coz WE ARE NOT GOING TO CALL FLAGRANT ON YOU.

Then point to Bulls/celtics game #5.

If they change it to a flagrant, don't they have to do a replay? Because that changed the entire complexion of the game. Even if the cede that Miller missed two free throws, the Bulls would still have an opportunity to tie or win as they would have a posession. And they'd probably have to replay at least the second Miller free throw, as the strategy would have been to make that if it was a flagrant, and the Bulls were getting the ball on the side.

I think the best they can do is suspend Rondo for a game. No way they allow a "replay" of game 5's ending. Not that I wouldn't love that, but rather I doubt its possible.

 

[dougthonus]

As a Bulls fan I wish it would of been a flagrant because it could of helped us win, but I don't think you make that call at that point of the game. I know if it was Rose that hacked Perkins in the face I wouldn't of wanted a flagrant called. Whether the C's would have got the call or not is a different story.

At first, I was where you were.

However, after watching it again and thinking of things I've seen called flagrant this year, that's as clear a flagrant foul as you can get. He basically just hits Miller in the face. He is no where near going for the ball. He makes no attempt at the ball, he uses excessive force (he actually drags miller down by the head). That's a flagrant foul.

It's not even close.

I don't know if it's a flagrant 2 or not. I think the only reason I'd upgrade it to a flagrant 2 is that it cost the Bulls teh game, and they won't take that back. Making it a flagrant 2 so Rondo is suspended would be 'fair' given the outcome of the foul that they won't do over.

The fact that it clearly was flagrant will be made obvious today when they review it and upgrade it to a flagrant.

 

[dougthonus]

If they change it to a flagrant, don't they have to do a replay? Because that changed the entire complexion of the game. Even if the cede that Miller missed two free throws, the Bulls would still have an opportunity to tie or win as they would have a posession. And they'd probably have to replay at least the second Miller free throw, as the strategy would have been to make that if it was a flagrant, and the Bulls were getting the ball on the side.

You could make this argument over every foul upgraded to flagrant in a close game. They never replay those games.

There is at least a tiny bit of precedent though as the NBA replayed the end of a game when Shaq was incorrectly ruled out of a game by fouls against the Hawks.

I wouldn't say it's completely impossible that they make that decision because of the O'Neal ruling, but I think it's less than a 1% chance because they upgrade fouls all the time and never replay those games. This one could possibly be an exception because it had a clear impact with 2 seconds left, but I doubt it.

 

[??? ??????]

dougthonus wrote:

If they change it to a flagrant, don't they have to do a replay? Because that changed the entire complexion of the game. Even if the cede that Miller missed two free throws, the Bulls would still have an opportunity to tie or win as they would have a posession. And they'd probably have to replay at least the second Miller free throw, as the strategy would have been to make that if it was a flagrant, and the Bulls were getting the ball on the side.

You could make this argument over every foul upgraded to flagrant in a close game. They never replay those games.

There is at least a tiny bit of precedent though as the NBA replayed the end of a game when Shaq was incorrectly ruled out of a game by fouls against the Hawks.

I wouldn't say it's completely impossible that they make that decision because of the O'Neal ruling, but I think it's less than a 1% chance because they upgrade fouls all the time and never replay those games. This one could possibly be an exception because it had a clear impact with 2 seconds left, but I doubt it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3192421

I'd hope they would follow suit in this situation. Bulls got robbed of an extra posession at the very least.

 

[cool007]

dougthonus wrote:

As a Bulls fan I wish it would of been a flagrant because it could of helped us win, but I don't think you make that call at that point of the game. I know if it was Rose that hacked Perkins in the face I wouldn't of wanted a flagrant called. Whether the C's would have got the call or not is a different story.

At first, I was where you were.

However, after watching it again and thinking of things I've seen called flagrant this year, that's as clear a flagrant foul as you can get. He basically just hits Miller in the face. He is no where near going for the ball. He makes no attempt at the ball, he uses excessive force (he actually drags miller down by the head). That's a flagrant foul.

It's not even close.

I don't know if it's a flagrant 2 or not. I think the only reason I'd upgrade it to a flagrant 2 is that it cost the Bulls teh game, and they won't take that back. Making it a flagrant 2 so Rondo is suspended would be 'fair' given the outcome of the foul that they won't do over.

The fact that it clearly was flagrant will be made obvious today when they review it and upgrade it to a flagrant.

Totally agree with Doug here and Kush, how can you say taht it was not a flagrant foul???

Please watch it again and again and tell me.

watch this pic.

Rondo is NOWHERE near the ball, He also admitted that he wanted to FOUL HARD because that was a big man. That was TOTALLY intentional for fouling hard. That was also above the shoulder/neck area.

THAT IS A BORDERLINE FLAGRANT 2 AND CLEARLY FLAGRANT 1 FOR SURE.

I hope that they atleast upgrade it to flagrant 1 and I want Nocioni back on this team to show some fight and some HARD FOULS every time someone goes to the bucket.

 

[Ralphb07]

Looking at other Flagrant 2 today and watching this play from every different angle and it being a be play I think Rondo should be suspended and it has more to do with costing the Bulls the game. If they don't do anything there basically saying at the end of games you can take a swipe at someones head and we won't call it and review it after when it's too late.

I think Stern needs to upgrade to a flagrant 2 to justify screwing the game up but also making sure teams in the future don't do the same things

 

[cool007]

Ralphb07 wrote:

Looking at other Flagrant 2 today and watching this play from every different angle and it being a be play I think Rondo should be suspended and it has more to do with costing the Bulls the game. If they don't do anything there basically saying at the end of games you can take a swipe at someones head and we won't call it and review it after when it's too late.

I think Stern needs to upgrade to a flagrant 2 to justify screwing the game up but also making sure teams in the future don't do the same things

Exactly, if they don't either replay that game for the final seconds atleast or if they don't suspend Rondo, then I want ALL BULLS PLAYERS TO FOUL EACH AND EVERY CELTIC PLAYER THAT COMES TO THE PAINT FOR LAYUP AND FOUL HARD. Foul so hard that they have to bring in stretcher every time a player is down.

This is where Nocioni would come in handy. I need him back for a 10-day contract.

 

[Ralphb07]

Everyone on Around the Horn said it was a flagrant foul and brought up by calling it a flagrant foul we could of replaced him for Gordon plus had 2 secs left for a shot which how the series has been you never know.

It's only fair to punish Rondo but they won't

We don't need to foul Boston hard that won't help anything we need to come out and attack the rim forcing the refs to make up for it.

Vinny complained, we sent video to the league so we gotta take advantage of it and just attack the rim

 

[RC_Skinny22]

The best way to answer would be a 20 point blow out at the UC

 

[dougthonus]

We don't need to foul Boston hard that won't help anything we need to come out and attack the rim forcing the refs to make up for it.

I agree. We're a smaller weaker team. We're better off just attacking and winning than whining and trying to hurt someone.

 

[cool007]

Bullseye wrote:

The best way to answer would be a 20 point blow out at the UC

That would make me soooooooooooooooooooo proud of this team - actually more proud that way then my other idea of beating the hell out of them with hard fouls.

Yes, I would rather Bulls win (hopefully by 20 or more) than get stuck on revenge stuff and blow the game and lose it.

I am pretty sure crowd will let them have it though.

 

[Kush77]

dougthonus wrote:

As a Bulls fan I wish it would of been a flagrant because it could of helped us win, but I don't think you make that call at that point of the game. I know if it was Rose that hacked Perkins in the face I wouldn't of wanted a flagrant called. Whether the C's would have got the call or not is a different story.

At first, I was where you were.

However, after watching it again and thinking of things I've seen called flagrant this year, that's as clear a flagrant foul as you can get. He basically just hits Miller in the face. He is no where near going for the ball. He makes no attempt at the ball, he uses excessive force (he actually drags miller down by the head). That's a flagrant foul.

It's not even close.

I don't know if it's a flagrant 2 or not. I think the only reason I'd upgrade it to a flagrant 2 is that it cost the Bulls teh game, and they won't take that back. Making it a flagrant 2 so Rondo is suspended would be 'fair' given the outcome of the foul that they won't do over.

The fact that it clearly was flagrant will be made obvious today when they review it and upgrade it to a flagrant.

Oh, it was a flagrant foul. And if it was any other point in the game it probably would have been called.

Maybe I'm just so conditioned by the way NBA games are called I just expect that type of call not to happen at that point in a playoff game.

 

[theCHI_Life84]

all this talk about flagrant fouls, dwyane wade just picked up a totally bogus flagrant foul that was weak sauce compared to what rondo did to miller. HORRIBLE officiating continues to impress.

 

[Dpauley23]

Did he come back in the game?

 

[theCHI_Life84]

who, wade? or evans (the guy he fouled)?

it was only a flagrant 1 so he didnt get ejected, and evans was completely fine. to me i wouldnt have even considered it a very hard foul, and he so obviously made A PLAY AT THE BALL. if you guys manage to catch that little snippet, you'll see what i mean. horrible call.

 

[Manic Devourer]

I say break Rondo's face and end his career. I don't care if it isn't sportsmen like. That ET looking MF!

 

[Diddy1122]

I can honestly say the officiating this entire season has been one of the worst I have seen since they instituted the hand-check rule.

What makes this even worse is the fact that Rondo admitted after the game that it was intentional. And he still gets nothing.

As pissed as I was that there was no flagrant, or even a foul called initially, what Bennett Salvatore did in game 1 was far worse. How bad of a ref do you have to be to blow your whistle at nothing in the final 10secs of regualtion? And does anyone remember the little touch foul he called on Dirk that determined the outcome of Game 5, and swung the entire Finals in Miami's favor? How this guy still has a job is beyond me.

The only way to clean this crap up is to start a grading scale like the NFL has. Only the best refs get to do the playoffs. And if you don't make the grade by the end of the season, you're gone.