There is good irony in this statement. So you agree it should have been called a flagrant, because Brad Miller had a loose tooth, his teeth went through his lip, causing him to have to get a ton of stitches, and he was coughing up blood.
Fine. Most. So some guy calls my posts homer-tastic, and he shouldn't be expecting a harsh retort? lol ok
Really I am a homer to the Nth degree? I don't give a shit about Boston, and in fact hate the team. I just recognize there is a difference between intentionally fouling somebody, and going for the ball but being way to small to get there and end up clobbering somebody. The fact is Rondo went for a block, and was much too small to get to where he wanted. So he ended up getting body. I would have still called it a flagrant because of too much physical contact.
This is something that was overlooked. Brad Miller got his stitches ON THE SIDELINE before taking those two free throws. You know this was a flagrant. Everyone knows it was a flagrant. Bulls got screwed for a few reasons. 1. If Rondo has to commit a non-flagrant foul, the ball wouldn't have went flying out of Miller's hands with a lack of control, so it would have hit the rim. Even if he missed, it would have been goaltending, because Perkins hit the rim. Either and one with a Rondo foul, or just the bucket if Rondo didn't foul at all. 2. If it's a flagrant, Bulls don't have to have a guy who just got stitches and has some compound in his mouth to stop the bleeding take free throws. Instead they get Gordon at the line and the ball back for the final posession.
I hope you can realize the difference between incidental contact of heads colliding, and Rondo hitting Miller in the face intentionally. Please don't tell me that that was a spontaneous arm action by Rondo.
lots of posters think they speak for the masses here, none do. If there is one thing I've learned in my time with this group it's that we can disagree on just about anything. I've even seen Blazer posters hoping to lose in the playoffs so the team can get on with what they see as the real priority of cutting players they don't like So no matter what you might express, expect someone to take issue and don't be surprised if there is some vitriol included. Just please leave the rest of us out of your response. STOMP
So it should have been flagrant just because Miller lost control of the ball. Fantastic. Brad Miller didn't start his 'OMG look how hurt I am' act until after he missed the first free throw. That proves that this wasn't enough of a setback to hinder his free throws. Ben Gordon's FT% is only 1 better than Miller's anyway, so that is also a bullshit theory.
They should install a rule that says players have to play defense with their hands holding behind their backs. That way Brad Miller will never get hit.
We'd also get to avoid Pierce leaving a game in a wheel chair, and seeing players getting elbowed in the balls, so that might be good.
I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or if you have no idea what you're talking about because neither of those things would have been prevented by such a rule.
It's a flagrant foul because Rondo hit Miller in the face while making no attempt at the ball. No reason, other than that. The only reason the ball flew out of his hands was because it was a flagrant foul. Rondo wasn't in a position to make a legitimate, non-flagrant foul, that would have stopped the ball from hitting the rim, thus being a goaltend at the very least because Perkins touched the rim. So you would be fine with Brad Miller hitting Rondo in the face every time he drives to the basket?
I would. Rondo would get right up and nail the free throws instead of crying like a bitch and pouting about the officials not handing the game to his team.
While making no attempt to cut Miller's lip either. He was trying to foul him. Should we dish out flagrant's for end-of-the-game intentional fouls? What in fuck's name are you even talking about? Who cares? Miller's made a career out of that anyway.
I recognize I'm late to the game on this one, but my $0.02 (should anyone care): 1. Rondo said he fouled intentionally, though I'll give him the BoD that he probably didn't want to bust up Miller's face. But this wasn't a normal foul. It was an intentional foul. And the result of which led to a busted-up face, which personally I think means the foul was excessive. The rulebook talks about a flagrant I "usually" being called because of windup, not that that's the rule. And intentional foul that impacts the head and draws blood should be at the very least considered a flagrant one. I don't think Rondo should have been suspended. I do think it should've been 2 FTs and the ball.
People's arguments are ridiculous. Do you guys realize how often players are hit above the shoulders when they are fouled? Hitting them all with flagrants would be the dumbest thing ever and make an NBA game completely unwatchable.
Isn't that Stern's goal? Make this sport unwatchable and akin to hydrochloric acid to the eyes? I mean they're already halfway there.
Come on. If Miller did that to Rondo everytime he drove to the hoop, Rondo would probably leave the game with a broken jaw, cheek bone, eye socket, maybe injured with whiplash or something. You'd say you'd like to see it, but once Rondo is out for the series with a serious injury, you would be calling for Miller to be suspended for half a season.
The only issue here is that it was pretty clear that Rondo had no real chance of hitting the ball. If there is a chance of hitting the ball and you hit someone above the shoulders - there is a place to consider the foul not flagrant - when there is no chance of getting the ball - you need to push him down or crash into his body - if you use your hand (which was closed at the time of contact - so anyone claiming he was going for the ball is full of it) - and you hit the head - it's a flagrant. Simple as that. Should not have been a flagrant-2, did not deserve a suspension - but it was a clear flagrant.
