by Patrick ‘Rey’ Reynell
Much has been said concerning the flagrant fouls in the Lakers-Rockets series. The fouls have been viewed, reviewed, and the jurisdiction has gone beyond just the call on the court in every game. Therein lies the problem.
The flagrant foul calls in the NBA perhaps are too subjective on-the-court calls because flagrant foul 1 and flagrant foul 2 are separated by a single adjective yet carry different consequences.
According the NBA rule book, a flagrant foul 1 is defined as follows:
“If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be unnecessary, a flagrant foul–penalty (1) will be assessed” (Section IV paragraph a).
A flagrant foul 2 is defined as:
“If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be unnecessary and excessive, a flagrant foul–penalty (2) will be assessed” (Section IV paragraph b).
A flagrant foul is first and foremost “unnecessary.” The difference, however, between a flagrant foul 1 and a flagrant foul 2 is whether or not it is “excessive.” The problem is, what is defined as excessive?
The personal fouls help better define this. A personal foul is anything that impedes the progress of the offensive player with the following exceptions; “Flagrant, elbow and punching fouls” (Section 1 paragraph e). Even the lexicon for loose ball fouls denotes a flagrant foul if punching or elbows are involved.
Based on the description under the personal fouls section of the NBA rules, can it then be said that any elbow thrown, whether connected or not, is a flagrant foul 2? Does that define excessive? Because what is at stake is being able to continue play with a flagrant foul 1 or being ejected (and most of the time suspended) with a flagrant foul 2.
Friday night in game 3 of the Lakers-Rockets series, Ron Artest was assessed a flagrant foul 2 late in the game for his hard foul on Pau Gasol. Taking a close look at the play, it appeared as though Artest did two things right.
First, he took a proper angle to challenge the play. Secondly, he went after the ball and actually made a play on it. In the process, he body checked (which is in the definition of a personal foul) Gasol in the air and sent him hard to the floor.
Excessive? Certainly harder fouls have been committed and Gasol did hit the floor hard, but one would expect that to happen when a 6’7″ 265 pound player is making a play on the ball near the basket.
Unnecessary? What was Artest to do? Wait until Gasol was closer and heighten the chances of an and-one play? Not make an attempt to stop Gasol from scoring? As mentioned, he had a very good angle to challenge such a shot.
Now going back to game 2, where Kobe Bryant was brought into question for his actions on a box-out involving him and Artest. This particular foul was upgraded to a flagrant 1 after the game.
Off a shot attempt, Bryant has inside position on Artest. He pivots so as to seal Artest from the rebound, thus establishing inside position deep under the basket. As the ball hits the rim, without pivoting, Bryant’s elbow rears back and hits Artest above the neck.
This foul was certainly unnecessary. Bryant did everything right in establishing a box-out, then, by swinging his elbow, looked for an advantage when he realized his position was too far under the basket for the rebound. No play for the ball, but simply a strategy to clear space that is not established by the player.
According the rule book, Bryant used his elbow. Therefore, his was upgraded to a flagrant foul. The NBA did well in correcting this error; however, throwing an elbow that is above the opponent’s neck should be excessive and flagrant 2.
If a player uses a pivot foot with elbows flared, there is no swinging. Bryant, in this case, swung his elbow back. Since this is not defined under the flagrant foul description, it is left too subjective and thus ineffective within the fast-paced action of an NBA game.
The two changes that probably should be made in the semantics of fouls, first for personal fouls:
1) They need to establish that a successful play on the ball from a frontal angle of the offensive player is never flagrant
Any player who genuinely goes after the ball may body check the offensive player, but if a play on the ball is the intended motion, then it will not be harmful, just aggressive.
And for flagrant fouls:
2) They need to include any swinging of the arms once in an established position, including during the use of the pivot foot, is prohibited.
A flagrant 1 is an aggressive play on the ball from any angle other than the front. A flagrant 2 is then an aggressive play that involves swinging the arms in a manner that could harm the opponent.
Based on this wording, then Bryant should have received a flagrant 2 foul and been ejected from game 2. Since the correction was made after the game, he should have been suspended for game 3.
Conversely, Ron Artest should have been called for a personal foul on Gasol and nothing more.
This might not make it as specific as it needs to be, but it at least would be away from using words like “unnecessary” and “excessive” to separate minor and serious infractions on the game rules.
Then, maybe, every hard foul with two players facing each other will not draw the ire of fans and teammates. From now on, the NBA should be proactive and not so reactive when it comes to aggressive play.
What a great game hoops would be if all this stuff concerning fouls was somehow absent from the discussion! Way too much of this sport is focused on the officials, how they function as a team on particular day, all their various interpretations, what mood they’re in, etc. Basketball officiating is a very hard thing to get consistently get right … so many calls, nobody is ever happy.
But these last 2 minute intentional fouls, free throw shooting contests and seemingly endless supply of timeouts totally bog down the end of most NBA games. Don’t know what we can do to change it, so thanks for listening! Thanks, Rey, for your write-up!
Thanks, Wally.
Personally, I say get rid of the term flagrant all together. You make a great point about the last two minutes of a game and if you’ve noticed, guys are now afraid to foul hard down the stretch because of all the flagrant fouls being called. How the term flagrant has been misconstrued to mean an aggressive play on the ball is beyond me.
If a guy is trying to cheap shot another, T him up. That will set him straight, he still gets to play, and nothing major occurs other than the opposing team having a chance at FTs and multiple possessions. The NBA has allowed the refs to call any viable, HARD, AGGRESSIVE challenge flagrant. No – it is a personal foul, just like Artest’s was. Play on.
Rey,
Great stuff.
Pau Gasol going end to end is a train wreck. If no one touches him, he still
probably would have landed awkwardly.
The power Kobe wields is kinda perplexing. Wasn’t Kobe the one who smacked Ginobili last year? And that happened when Kobe followed through on a shot. I know Kobe is talented, but he certainly knows how to manipulate the system.
I love how Kobe is using the in-game interviews to paint a pleasing picture of himself. He keeps commenting on how it’s good basketball. Yeah, as long as he isn’t getting ejected or suspended.
I am for the fouls at the end of the game as a way of creating a possibility for more great plays. It’s a lot more acceptable than taking a knee at the end of a football game so everyone can watch the clock run.
Referees/ officials / umpires and their moods can have a negative on any sporting event. Just consider the impact an umpire can have based upon his interpretation of a strike zone.
Whatever happened to the intentional foul call? It was rarely called, used when it was obvious. Everything else was a personal foul.
I think the intentional foul left us with the skirmish in Auburn Hills that occurred four years ago.