My NBA playoff-watching habits might best be described as mercurial. It’s not unusual for those who come over for a viewing session to ask, “Who the hell are you rooting for?” The answer, with a few exceptions, is generally, “Basketball.” It’s not even so much a “good game,” though that’s always a bonus. The Mavericks-Spurs contests haven’t been terribly competitive, but watching Dallas perfect its offense over the past week or so — dribble-attack, moving Dirk around in the halfcourt, swinging weak side for Josh Howard when the Spurs overcommit — has been one of the early pleasures of the postseason. Seeing Houston use Luis Scola to full effect, the probing of Tony Parker and Rajon Rondo, Josh Smith and LaMarcus Aldridge learning how to fill out their games, Chauncey Billups teaching the Nuggets what it means to run a set offense? These are the things that excite and, by and large, the events that have defined the opening round of the 2009 NBA Playoffs. We’ve seen the triumph of basketball — actual on-court machinations — over sidebars.
Until last night…which is why when the alarm went off this morning, I buried my head under the comforter. I knew that banners like “Flagrant Fallout” would headline the coverage, that writers I depend on to educate me about the game would devote column inches to a debate that can’t be won, that the discussion about basketball today would approximate those awful back-and-forth cable news shows. As a guy in the business of sports web media, I should value the heat that stories like the Howard and Rondo/Miller incidents generate for traffic, but as a person who tends to approach basketball as a New Critic, the debates bore the hell out of me. Maybe it’s the Clipper blogger in me, but I’ve always taken for granted that bad — even fatal — fortune will bestow itself on certain teams in certain situations. This reality is unsatisfying, but life presents certain inconveniences, and few of them are intentional. It’s irrational to believe that every missed call is a conspiratorial stunt aimed against your team. Even worse, debating the governance of the game sort of defeats the point of basketball which, for me, has always been that it’s a refuge from…well…debating the governance of life. We can argue how to defend the pick and roll or whether there’s a correlation between pace and offensive efficiency, but discussions about who gets screwed and to what extent aren’t particularly interesting.
That said, I think last night’s events bring some salient points to the surface, the most important of which concerns Rajon Rondo’s foul on Brad Miller. The play has already been subject to varying interpretation, and those on either side of the debate are unlikely to change any minds. As an observer with no rooting interest in the series other than to see even more stellar basketball, what I saw was a flagrant foul by Rondo. The argument that Rondo was making a play for the ball seems specious. How could a basketball player who consistently demonstrates uncanny body control somehow fall three feet short of his intended target and instead strike an opponent across the head? It’s untenable.
By failing to enforce the flagrant foul rule, the League is doing something dangerous: It’s inviting players and coaches to engage in the sort of risk analysis that will inevitably lead to more head-thwacking. Manufacturers routinely measure costs against benefits when deciding whether to enhance the safety of a product. If they spend $400 million on a fix, will it save an amount equal or greater than $400 million in legal settlements? If the answer is no, the company generally won’t greenlight the adjustment. We make these calculations in our own lives. When a two year old visits my home, I take some additional measures to make my pad a little more child-safe, but I don’t eliminate every hazard.
It’s undeniable that striking a player across the head as he drives to the basket serves as an offensive deterrent on a number of levels. A player who is assaulted in that manner is probably less assertive going to the hole in the future, and he might even be a little less likely to drain his free throws because he’s still recovering from the blow. In other words, hitting a guy in the head has real benefits that could probably be measured in points. What are the costs in that equation? Two shots and the ball. If the League eliminates those costs, it encourages all but the most principled actors to size up risk in a way that will result in the exact kind of behavior the League wants to avoid.
19 Responses
I watched the game last night and I didn’t see the foul. Not that it didn’t happen, it’s just that until they changed the camera angle I couldn’t see it. I don’t know if the refs had a better view. As for Rondo, I think he meant to foul him, but not to flagrantly foul. Rondos not really a dirty player. However, all being said, if the refs had a clear view I think they should have called a flagrant. Even so, I’m not sure if that would have changed the outcome.
As long as were talking fouls, how about the biggest player on the court throwing elbows ala DH? I think thats much more flagrant.
Posted on April 29th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Howard got suspended for game 6. That could be a HUGE factor leading to an upset.
Posted on April 29th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
“By failing to enforce the flagrant foul rule, the League is doing something dangerous: It’s inviting players and coaches to engage in the sort of risk analysis that will inevitably lead to more head-thwacking.”
Meh. The rules are somewhat different when the shot clock gets turned off at the end of a playoff game.
I thought it was a 50/50 call on whether or not Rondo should have gotten a flagrant call on that foul. But had he done it midway through the third quarter, it definitely would have been a flagrant.
If you’re going to the hole with the shot clock turned off in a playoff game, you should expect some serious contact in proximity to the hoop. Nothing wrong with that.
You’re more likely to fracture a vertebrate in a botched play in Memphis in February than you are during a Rondo-type foul at the end of a playoff game.
Posted on April 29th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
This is why I read ClipperBlog – insightful, intelligent commentary on an issue that could gently be described as incendiary. From my point of view that’s as flagrant as a foul gets. I’m not remotely as athletic or coordinated as Rajon Rondo, but I’ve played basketball pretty much my whole life and I can say there’s absolutely no chance that I could miss the ball by that wide of a margin. But back to the point: that there is some good, unbiased analysis. Hooray blogosphere!
and Petey, if it would have been a flagrant foul in the third quarter then it definitely is one in the fourth. Yes, refs may allow a little more incidental contact around the rim at the end of a game (and each quarter), but a blatant shot to the head 14 feet away from the basket, with no other players around, cannot go unpunished. If this were the NBA of the 1980s we could pretty much guarantee that a potential season-ending injury would be inflicted upon a Celtics player next game.
Now maybe players are too scared of the 8-10 game suspension that would result from that foul, but a big suspension for that foul, and not Rondo’s, would only fuel the the-NBA-is-insanely-corrupt fire.
Basically, the league is just asking for a bruiser to come in and take out a ticket-seller for an indefinite period of time. That’s just not smart business, Mr. Stern.
Posted on April 29th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
“and Petey, if it would have been a flagrant foul in the third quarter then it definitely is one in the fourth.”
As stated, it’s not about the fourth quarter. It’s about the final seconds of a playoff game when the shot clock has been turned off.
More contact in the lane is expected and allowed in such situations.
I wouldn’t have been outraged if a flagrant had been called on Rondo. As stated, I thought it was a 50/50 call. My only objection is to the idea that allowing a bit more contact in the final seconds of playoff games will change the way coaches and players approach such situations during the other 99.9% of game action.
Posted on April 29th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
But it will affect the way players approach situations during end-of-game situations with the outcome of the game on the line. The players on defense might think they’re allowed to play with reckless abandon (and not in the good, give it your 100%, kind of way). That is, depending on your definition of “a bit more contact.“
eastie Rich Reply:
April 29th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I grew up in the eighties and remember how tough the game was played. Then Detroit came along and raised or lowered the bar even further. If you want to watch how to play dirty, just watch old Pistons tapes.
I wouldn’t have been surprised if a flagrant was called. But at the very end of the game the players play differently. How long ago was it (was it just last year) that Fischer basically tackled Parker at the end of a playoff game – and nothing was called.
I can’t defend the officiating, who knows what the league wants anymore?
Posted on April 29th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Zbo anyone ? Jake voshkul didn’t even get a tech. Nba refs are jokes so I refuse to care about blown calls.
Posted on April 29th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
I wish the clippers were in the playoffs so they could all get hit in the faces. They deserve it.
eastie Rich Reply:
April 30th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Made me laugh! I’m all for it as long as the coach is on the floor.
Posted on April 29th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Hard to call that at the end of the game. They should have though.
Maybe the Clippers are waiting for a coach to get fired after the playoffs? Maybe they’re hoping to get Byron Scott if he got fired. BD and byron scott back together again.
Gordon for President Reply:
April 30th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Byron Scott is the reason Boom-Dizzle was traded for Speedy Claxton and Dale Davis. He felt Baron was lazy, out of shape, and looking for any excuse not to play, hence the comment, and I’m paraphrasing here, “NBA players today sit out games because of hangnails.” After this season, I tend to see the truth in his words… There won’t be a Baron and Byron reunion anytime soon. I was just thinking the other day looks like Scott would be a good successor to Phil Jackson.
FireDunleavy .com Reply:
April 30th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Hope you know I was joking.
Gordon for President Reply:
April 30th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I do now. If we dump Baron, and Byron is let go (which could happen if they can’t deal Peja or Chandler), why not bring him to LA. I respect him as a coach, but he seems to work best with play-making point guards (J-Kidd and CP3). Too bad we don’t currently have one of those…
Posted on April 29th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
I remember Jerry West used to say he wanted the ball at the end of a game to take the last shot because the defense was afraid to foul and scoring was easier. Somewhere along the line, the referees got the idea that they weren’t going to decide a game so now they call the last five seconds differently than they call the entire game before that. Mugging is legal. Try to get a shot off in the last five. You’re going to be held and pounded on and the refs will swallow their whistle. It even leaks down to kids games, where I coach and see it all the time… Why can’t they just call the game by the rules, the same way they do it for the first 47.55? They give the defense a tremendous and unfair advantage.
A foul should be a foul and a flagrant a flagrant.
Posted on April 30th, 2009 at 7:34 am
“I remember Jerry West used to say he wanted the ball at the end of a game to take the last shot because the defense was afraid to foul and scoring was easier. Somewhere along the line, the referees got the idea that they weren’t going to decide a game so now they call the last five seconds differently than they call the entire game before that. Mugging is legal.”
If you have the ball on the perimeter in the final seconds, you will get a call on anything that is a foul by the rulebook. Jerry West would do fine with the refs in the closing seconds of a playoff game in 2009.
Mugging is legal in the final seconds only in the lane or off the ball.
If you’ve got a live dribble from 10 feet on out, you’ve got excellent protection from the zebras in these situations.
And you do have some protection from the zebras even in the lane or off the ball. Let’s not forget that Rondo was called for a foul on Miller. You just don’t the benefit of the doubt in the lane or off the ball in the closing seconds of a playoff game. And that seems about right to me.
Posted on April 30th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Rondo himself said during the press conference that when he realized he couldnt get the ball, he had to do whatever he could to stop the basket. What makes this problem worse is the vague definitions the league uses to define flagrant fouls. “Unneccessary contact”? what foul couldn’t you describe as both unneccessary or necessary if you wanted to? I definitely agree that this sets a bad precedent for players to get attacked in end game situations.
Did anyone see the flagrant they called on Dwayne Wade yesterday? This one was significantly worse.
Posted on April 30th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Eric Gordon finishes 5th in rookie of the year voting, but cant make the all-rookie 1st team. it sucks to be a clippers fan.
Posted on April 30th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
liberation conversation is a great song by marlena shaw
Posted on May 4th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Trackbacks