My opinion is that anytime you hit a guy in the head and you are 2-ft away from the ball - it should be a flagrant - since the hit is un-necessary - could have just gone for his hands or his body to push him off. Rondo deserved a flagrant. Still does not change the fact that Howard's was worse and deserved an immediate ejection.
[youtube]bLHRRTcMWBQ[/youtube] About a minute in... I'm going to guess that this was Ray Allen's fault?
Personally. I think Rondo should've gotten a flagrant 1. Howard a flagrant 2. The refs blew both the calls. However, I do think the league office is getting it right with a suspension on Howard but not Rondo.
I think Rondo's foul definitely deserved a flagrant. But it wasn't anywhere near serious enough to warrant league suspension after the game. I consider it a missed call, but that's that. Howard's elbow was not part of a basketball play, entirely intentional to harm and definitely deserving of league suspension.
Typical NBA http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4112697&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines Our refs messed up, and made the bad call, but we'll stand by them, because we don't want to deal with the unpleasantness that would come with that being turned to a flagrant. (Which would be a Chicago petition of the game, followed by a replay of the ending, after Game 6 had already taken place...which would open up a possibility of Chicago going back to Boston up 3-2, with a chance to knock Boston out in 2 seconds, or down 3-2, with a chance to get back in the series in 2 seconds.
Then why did they suspend Howard? If Howard was ejected like he should have been, wouldn't that have affected the outcome?
Nice theory, but according to Boston homer Bill Simmons Rondo himself admitted in his post game comments he wasn't going for the ball. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/090429&sportCat=nba STOMP
Now, everytime Rondo drives to the basket, Miller, Thomas, and Noah have to just knock Rondo in the face, because apparently it's only a personal foul these days.
Rondo was going for his arm. He was like 10 feet away from Miller when he got the ball and was scrambling back into the play. It was definitely a dangerous play, but borderline as far as the flagrant rules are concerned, and would never be called at that point of a game.
Calls are missed all the time. They don't replay games, or parts of games, simply because a call was missed.
Stop that video at 0:40. It's obvious Rondo is out of the play, he's already beat. He proceeds to swipe across Miller's face and busts his lip. I think he's needs a game suspension. As does Howard. Howard's foul was worse, BTW
Yes I just read that somewhere else. It did honestly look like he was making a play on the ball, but there is still no way this is a flagrant.
Howard's foul was meant as a blow no two ways about it. Dude should have been tossed on the spot. Rondo's was equally as viscous but at least it had the small redeeming element that he was trying to stop a big bucket. That he wasn't tossed and hasn't been punished since just encourages more of the same. If I were on the Bulls, believe me I'd be looking to payback the first Celt going to the hoop STOMP
Rondo's foul should have been a break away foul! Rondo was not anywhere close to the being between the basket and Miller.
Rondo - Flagrant 1 Howard - Flagrant 2 Anyone that thought Rondo was making a play on the ball is a homer to the Nth degree.
No. No it didn't. I happened to see the end of that game live. The first timeI saw it live, I thought it was flagrant. During the replays from the multiple angles, I thought it was flagrant. NOTHING I ever saw made me think, "Gee, Rondo was trying to make a legit play here". I think the refs should have made the call as a flagrant 1. Why? Because that foul to me is akin to a breakaway foul. Without consequence, the offending team would be stupid NOT to foul that way in that situation. It gives them a HUGE advantage - an unfair advantage. The rules and application should be such to even out the unfairness. If the league doesn't fix this you can be sure you will see a LOT more nasty, and hard fouls like this going forward. Why not? Get beat on a well designed play? Can't make a legit play on the ball? Just pop a guy in the face to make sure he can't finish. No harm, no foul. Wooops. Harm, no flagrant foul.
Good god this is the most homer-tastic series of posts I've seen in a while. Your player is a chump and instead of playing defense, hit another player in the face. Everyone in the world see that it was a flagrant foul but you. Even Rondo said it was intentional. He should have had the same treatment that Howard had, end of story. Period.
you've been wrong with your silly hyperbole since the start of the thread, why stop now? I don't hate the Celts, but I thought it was definitely a flagrant foul. Why are you unable to disagree without belittling those who hold a different opinion? STOMP
