1:25 in the video...your own announcer " well he swung at the ball but I dont care what he wings at, he hit his head"
I don't find that relevant. He was reacting real-time with limited information and I don't think he was going on-record as to whether the foul was excessive and intentional or not.
It sucks but leave your bias out of it.
I don't think that my bias is significant in this matter. I think many Blazers fans would think I've got a Lakers bias here. Disagreement doesn't dictate (or even indicate) bias.
It was a play on the ball that had a shitty ending, thats all. Ariza isnt responsible for how Rudy lands if it was a clean foul.
The second sentence is absolutely true, but it was NOT a clean foul. He got Rudy's head. He took Rudy down by the wrist. He created a lot of contact when a player was defenseless.
Ariza has admitted he intended to make a hard foul. I don't see how anyone could really think it was "clean".
Too many players get flagrants because how a player falls rather than the intent of the contact
As I outlined above, there are two parts of a flagrant foul 2. Only one of them are used in a Flagrant 1 determination.
Excessive? The result
has to be factored in here, I think. Did the player go sprawling? Was he injured? It's conceivable that a player could be excessively fouled without a bad result (Shaq getting fouled by a little guy, for example) but it seems less than likely.
Intentional? This is not applicable to Flagrant 1 fouls. Only Flagrant 2.
If we don't look at the result when determining what's "excessive", it would be difficult to distinguish between "excessive" and "intentional", since it would just speak to what the offending player meant to do.
I think it's natural that most flagrants are because of the results (since Flagrant 2s are much less common).
In this case, though, I believe that both elements are satisfied and the refs were justified and correct in whistling Ariza for a Flagrant 2.
Ed O.