OT: Dwight Howard's elbow...

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Don't mind JE, he's still working for his first Tommy Point.
 
it's_GO_time said:
He didn't come close to that ball. I would hope that he was trying to commit a hard foul (no layups in playoffs) and reacted late, but no way was he going to even touch the ball (or the hand holding the ball . . . or the arm attached to the hand that had the ball).
Click to expand...

So... because Rondo didn't make contact with the ball, means he was going for Miller. Maybe he was actually trying to get a piece of the ball and ended up finding Miller's face instead. The video depicts that pretty well, I think. He thought he could get a piece of the ball, it was misjudgement on his part, he didn't get the ball, he got Miller.

Your reasoning is so bad.

This is kind of like the Garnett position you take . . . if you only see that as an obvious attempt at going for the ball . . . well I won't say you don't have a brain . . . it is just dyed green and you only see things one way.
Click to expand...

The hardcore Blazer fan/Celtic hater (or one of them) is accusing me of bias. Too fucking perfect. :lol:

Just because Howard throws an elbow and hits someone , doesn't mean he was trying to hit that person . . . he was just trying to clear some space for himself . . .
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you keep connecting two unrelated points every time you reply to me. Howard has very little if anything to do with this.
 
JE said:
I don't understand why you keep connecting two unrelated points every time you reply to me. Howard has very little if anything to do with this.
Click to expand...

Your posts and excuses for Rondo probably sound to me like some Magic fan making excuses for Howard's conduct. Would you buy the arguement that Howard didn't mean to elbow anyone, he was just clearing space and accidently hit another player?

Rondo either has very, very, very, very bad timing issues . . . or he was trying to take a hard foul.
 
I'm pretty sure you can call a flagrant regardless of intent. Maybe not a flagrant 2, but definitely a flagrant 1.
 
JE come on now, of course everyone's "going for the ball" doesn't mean that's what his intent was. Rondo knew he was beat and had to disrupt the play by all means necessary. Giving a guy a free-layup vs fouling someone going hard to the rim thus making them take some pretty clutch free-throws are like day and night.

So my position is Rondo knew he had to foul and that's why he did it. I'm sure he didn't mean to rake his face, but when you've gotta foul to stop an easy bucket, i'm sure you don't always get to choose how you do it, thus flagrant in my book
 
it's_GO_time said:
Your posts and excuses for Rondo probably sound to me like some Magic fan making excuses for Howard's conduct. Would you buy the arguement that Howard didn't mean to elbow anyone, he was just clearing space and accidently hit another player?
Click to expand...

Why is this even relevant?

FTR I'd give Howard a 50-50 on rather it was intentional or not, granted both videos I've tried have pretty horrible angles.

Rondo either has very, very, very, very bad timing issues . . . or he was trying to take a hard foul.
Click to expand...

His timing wasn't that off, considering the speed of the NBA game. He made an error in judgement.
 
blue32 said:
JE come on now, of course everyone's "going for the ball" doesn't mean that's what his intent was. Rondo knew he was beat and had to disrupt the play by all means necessary. Giving a guy a free-layup vs fouling someone going hard to the rim thus making them take some pretty clutch free-throws are like day and night.
Click to expand...

1) I wonder which is more likely, Rondo trying to get a piece of the ball or him fouling an 85% free throw shooter. No kidding Rondo knew he was beat, getting a hold of the ball was his way of trying to disrupt the play.

2) Hard fouls usually show intent. Rondo's intent was going for the ball.

3) Why would Rondo give a hard/flagrant foul in that situation, knowing that the softie league office would suspend him for game 6 and take away any chance his team had of winning that game?

So my position is Rondo knew he had to foul and that's why he did it. I'm sure he didn't mean to rake his face, but when you've gotta foul to stop an easy bucket, i'm sure you don't always get to choose how you do it, thus flagrant in my book
Click to expand...

......

NBA rule book said:
Flagrant Fouls: These fouls are considered unnecessary and/or excessive. There are two types of flagrant foul, 1 and 2. A flagrant foul 1 is unnecessary contact. This is usually when a defensive player winds-up and makes hard contact with the offensive player or makes hard contact and then follows through.
Click to expand...

Rondo's hit itself wasn't exactly overpowering and didn't look the least bit intentional, so show me exactly where he wound up and followed through.
 
I think raking someone's face, whether intentional or not ,is a flagrant foul, because its "unneccessary and/or excessive contact" But whatev's who cares.

I'm just sayin' its all opinions at this point.
 
blue32 said:
I think raking someone's face, whether intentional or not ,is a flagrant foul, because its "unneccessary and/or excessive contact" But whatev's who cares.
Click to expand...

A normal foul can qualify as unnecessary or excessive contact.
 
TrueHoop has an article about flagrant fouls and references the NBA rulebook.
 
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.
 
Suspended!
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/news/story?id=4112203

The Orlando Magic will be without two starters in their next playoff game after the NBA announced Wednesday that Dwight Howard has been suspended for Thursday night's Game 6 in Philadelphia.

Howard received a one-game ban for an elbow he swung at the head of 76ers center Samuel Dalembert in Tuesday's Game 5 and will join teammate Courtney Lee -- who was later felled by an unintentional Howard hit -- on the sideline when the 76ers try to force a Game 7 in the teams' tight first-round series.

The Magic had been bracing for what was widely considered a certain suspension after video replays clearly showed Howard swiping at Dalembert's head.

Adding to the likelihood that Howard would receive at least a one-game ban was the fact that he was not ejected after the elbow, merely receiving a technical foul that allowed him to stay on the floor. Howard wound up totaling 24 points and career playoff-best 24 rebounds to power Orlando to a 91-78 home win and nudge the Magic into a 3-2 series lead.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
Денг Гордон said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then why did they suspend Howard? If Howard was ejected like he should have been, wouldn't that have affected the outcome?
 
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.
 
Денг Гордон said:
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.
Click to expand...

Calls are missed all the time. They don't replay games, or parts of games, simply because a call was missed.
 
JE said:
Its pretty evident Rondo was going for the ball. Just because he was going for the ball and failed to make contact with the ball, and instead found Miller's face, doesn't mean that he was going after Miller.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
JE said:
Yes I just read that somewhere else. It did honestly look like he was making a play on the ball,
Click to expand...
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.
 
JE said:
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.
Click to expand...



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.
 
JE said:
Not the least bit surprising.

How the hell would that be a breakaway foul? Its in the halfcourt. Some douchebag couldn't stay in front of Miller, he got seperation from them, and Rondo went to stop him from getting an easy two. All the people who think this is a flagrant are, too no surprise, registered Celtic haters. So your takes are meaningless and actually kinda humorous.
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top