Bynum foul on Andersen is a reason why they need to redefine a flagrant foul.

[yvesdereuter]

OK, before all the Laker lovers are bent out of shape, know that Im not saying Bynum should have received a flagrant as it is defined. You can definitely make a case that he was going for the ball. However, it was a substantial collision and something that one could call reckless. The whole point of having flagrant fouls should be for safety and also to prevent further escalation. As the rule seems to be defined (or at least framed), you can pretty much do whatever provided you make contact with the ball...or look like you make contact with the ball.

Another aspect of this rule that is overdefined is the follow through. This seems to assume all fouls will be committed with an arm swing. I was thinking last night about what would have happened if Bynum would have put his shoulder into Anderens midsection (like he's making a tackle. Technically, there would have been contact with that ball (or an attempt at the ball since he was in the vicinity) and also it would be a way to sidestep the all of that follow through nonsense that is also part of the criteria.

Basically, the rule is over defined and its not like it eliminates subjectivity by being overdefined. So whats the point? It should simply be judged by recklessness.

[SportsTop]

Re: Bynum foul on Andersen is a reason why they need to redefine a flagrant foul.

Ah yes, so someone driving down the lane (which the Nuggets had been doing all night) should just be allowed to fly right by with a simple hand check?

There is a reason and a time for hard fouls and that was one of those times. It didn't endanger Anderson, Bynum got a lot of ball on the foul, and the message was sent.

What I find comical is that people throw phrases like "old school" and "playoff basketball" around but only apply it to certain situations.

It was a good foul and far from flagrant. The only reason people have issue with it is because: 1) It was the Lakers; and 2) The Nuggets had the game in hand for the most part.

[GSW]

Re: Bynum foul on Andersen is a reason why they need to redefine a flagrant foul.

If bynum knew how to play defense he wouldnt have even needed to do that.

just sayin.

[Stumbleweed]

Re: Bynum foul on Andersen is a reason why they need to redefine a flagrant foul.

I agree that it wasn't a flagrant foul. I also agree that they REALLY need to clean up these definitions and call it more consistently. To have something like the Rondo foul on Miller -- which knocked out teeth while also changing the outcome of a very important playoff game -- not be called and have things like this be called is just crazy. But then you look at legit flagrants that can be seen as "not giving up easy baskets" like Bynum's bodycheck of Gerald Wallace and compare it to this one and again, it makes no sense... no consistency at all.

Clearly it's a tough call to make, and I'm of the opinion that any play that is questionable should be reviewed on replay -- if they look at the play in slow motion (not quickly reacting to a hard fall, trying to immediately stop things form excalating, etc.) and determine that it's a flagrant, then it should not be overturned, and that's that. I hate that they make a call, eject a guy (Ron-Ron says "hi"), change a game, and then rescind/reduce the foul later... just ridiculous.

They need to give the refs more help -- they are expected to react so quickly in these situations and really, there should always be a second look given to game-changing calls such as flagrants. Too often they call a flagrant just because the guy fell hard and then over-react the other way and let the next ones go because the players/coach made a stink about the previous call.

[ex carrabba fan]

Re: Bynum foul on Andersen is a reason why they need to redefine a flagrant foul.

If bynum knew how to play defense he wouldnt have even needed to do that.

just sayin.

What does that have to do with the play and the horrendous call? He hit the ball with both hands, whether or not he "knows how to play defense" should not be relevant to this topic.

Refs need to stop "trying to control the game" when things get testy. This call and the Melo call were bad enough to turn people off to the league.

[23]

Re: Bynum foul on Andersen is a reason why they need to redefine a flagrant foul.

The refs and the league office are both inconsistent

They gave the refs leeway last season and players were getting tech's for saying "Ohhhhh"

That was ridiculous

[Po Pimp]

Re: Bynum foul on Andersen is a reason why they need to redefine a flagrant foul.

Anthony Johnson goes for a layup and inadvertantly elbows Mo Williams in the eye...they call a Flagrant 1

Andrew Bynum makes a play on the ball and inadvertantly swipes Birdman in the head...they call Flagrant 1

Rondo slaps Brad Miller from behind on a layup, nowhere near the ball and knocks his teeth out...personal foul

Rondo slings Kirk Hinrich into the scorers table...Flagrant 1

Dahntay Jones trips Kobe...no foul call whatsoever

These refs have been pathetic

[ehh]

Re: Bynum foul on Andersen is a reason why they need to redefine a flagrant foul.

Anthony Johnson goes for a layup and inadvertantly elbows Mo Williams in the eye...they call a Flagrant 1

I can't remember the last time I saw a flagrant offensive foul. I was out of town for the long weekend so I didn't see it until last night but I was laughing when I saw it.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: Bynum foul on Andersen is a reason why they need to redefine a flagrant foul.

They rescinded the flagrant they called on Anthony Johnson.

[ehh]

Re: Bynum foul on Andersen is a reason why they need to redefine a flagrant foul.

They rescinded the flagrant they called on Anthony Johnson.

I thought they said on the pregame last night that they changed it from a 2 to a 1. They completely rescinded it?

[yvesdereuter]

Re: Bynum foul on Andersen is a reason why they need to redefine a flagrant foul.

I agree that it wasn't a flagrant foul. I also agree that they REALLY need to clean up these definitions and call it more consistently. To have something like the Rondo foul on Miller -- which knocked out teeth while also changing the outcome of a very important playoff game -- not be called and have things like this be called is just crazy. But then you look at legit flagrants that can be seen as "not giving up easy baskets" like Bynum's bodycheck of Gerald Wallace and compare it to this one and again, it makes no sense... no consistency at all.

Clearly it's a tough call to make, and I'm of the opinion that any play that is questionable should be reviewed on replay -- if they look at the play in slow motion (not quickly reacting to a hard fall, trying to immediately stop things form excalating, etc.) and determine that it's a flagrant, then it should not be overturned, and that's that. I hate that they make a call, eject a guy (Ron-Ron says "hi"), change a game, and then rescind/reduce the foul later... just ridiculous.

They need to give the refs more help -- they are expected to react so quickly in these situations and really, there should always be a second look given to game-changing calls such as flagrants. Too often they call a flagrant just because the guy fell hard and then over-react the other way and let the next ones go because the players/coach made a stink about the previous call.

Like I said previously, I think the only way they should define a flagrant would be to call it a foul that is reckless/dangerous. This way it eliminates wiggle room by not making it overly specific.

I also think they should be able to call fouls for flopping.

[KG]

Re: Bynum foul on Andersen is a reason why they need to redefine a flagrant foul.

Did Dhantay Jones get any punishment for pushing Kobe in the back with 2 hands other than a simple foul?

I'm sorry but if someone does that to me in a pickup game we're .

[DTX3]

Re: Bynum foul on Andersen is a reason why they need to redefine a flagrant foul.

If bynum knew how to play defense he wouldnt have even needed to do that.

just sayin.

A Warriors fan talkin about DEFENSE?








I'm busting your little marbles.

[DTX3]

Re: Bynum foul on Andersen is a reason why they need to redefine a flagrant foul.

Did Dhantay Jones get any punishment for pushing Kobe in the back with 2 hands other than a simple foul?

I'm sorry but if someone does that to me in a pickup game we're .

Kobe did the same to Kleiza(i think) and didn't even get a foul for that.

[KG]

Re: Bynum foul on Andersen is a reason why they need to redefine a flagrant foul.

he bumped Kleiza but Dhantay put 2 hands on his back when he was in the air. That was bush league and a dangerous play but apparently you have to get hit in the face for you to get a flagrant/tech.