The NBA and Flagrant Fouls: Where No Contact Happens

The debate is raging: Did Rajon Rondo commit a flagrant foul last night when he hit Brad Miller in the face in the final seconds of overtime in Game Five between the Boston Celtics and Chicago Bulls?

That Rondo's play would be considered a flagrant foul is insulting to anyone who really cares about basketball. 

What concerns me most is all the people screaming today that the foul should have been flagrant.  Have we created a league in which that type of foul even merits consideration for a game-altering flagrant call?

If so, it is a shame.

Today, I'm listening to people who cover the NBA for a living who honestly believe the play should have been called a flagrant foul.  They are quick with the hyperbole, calling it the most glaring example of a flagrant they have ever seen. They're saying that if Rondo's foul wasn't a flagrant, they don't know what is. 

Really?

If what Rondo did was a flagrant, then what has basketball become?  Indeed, what else should he have done? 

Should Rondo not have tried to make a play and allowed Miller the easy game-tying layup?  Or should he have just tapped the 7'0", 260-pound Miller nicely on the arm, allowing him to make the shot, get fouled, and then win the game at the line?

Absolutely not.  In that situation, you commit the foul, and you do it any way you can.  You make the player earn it from the line.  That is basketball—that is how it has always been played, and that's the way it should be played. 

Oh, but he hit him in the face?  So what?  He made a swipe for the ball, missed, and came down—albeit hard—on Miller's face. 

It was a foul.  Get over it and move on. He didn't throw a punch or an elbow. He didn't shove Miller from behind.  He made a basketball play to send Miller to the line.

So, what then is a flagrant foul?  The question to ask is, "Was the foul committed while making a basketball play? " If the answer is no, then it's a flagrant. If the answer is yes, then it's not.

What is a basketball play?  I can't define it perfectly, but like the Supreme Court when it comes to obscenity, I know it when I see it.  And I saw Rondo make a basketball play. 

And let's stop pretending the situation should not matter.  Of course it should. 

Personally, I don't think Rondo's foul was anything more than a personal at any point in the game. But even if there's room for debate, are we really saying that a game should be decided based on a flagrant foul judgment call? 

I would like to think the answer to that is no, unless the foul is so blatantly flagrant that every single person who sees it can't help but agree.

A game-deciding flagrant foul should not be called in the final seconds unless it is an absolute certainty. The timing matters in the same way that if the foul had occurred in the first quarter of the game, no one would be talking about it today.  Situation absolutely matters. 

Last night was a great, great, basketball game.  The Bulls had the Celtics on the ropes, up eleven points with less than ten minutes to play.  But Boston came back, led by Paul Pierce, who had been—to borrow a word commentator Doug Collins used to describe his play—lethargic all night.  However, when the Celtics looked to have the game won, back came the Bulls.

Last night's game needed to be decided on the court.  It had to be earned, not decided based on a flagrant foul that would have been called only because the NBA is trying to take the physical play out of the sport. 

I hate what the NBA has become in terms of how it deals with hard fouls. The league has become more concerned with public relations than competition. There is a difference between a hard foul and a flagrant, but the league appears intent on blurring any such distinction. 

Hard fouls are part of the game—always have been, always should be.  That the NBA doesn't want dirty fouls is understandable.  That the NBA doesn't want a player clotheslining an opponent on a fast break is understandable.

Even the Celtics fan in me, for instance, would admit that had Kevin McHale's clothesline of Kurt Rambis in the 1984 Finals occurred today, it likely would be a flagrant 2.  McHale's play on Rambis was a dirty play. 

Rondo's play on Miller was not.

Players have to be allowed to defend the rim and make the other team earn a victory.  And we are not talking about protecting athletes who can't take the contact.  These are some of the strongest, largest, most athletically gifted people on the planet.  That they need to be babied and protected is absurd.  The game does not need to be policed that way. 

Even the college game is not officiated that way. When I watch the NCAA, I see plays whistled for regular fouls in almost every game that would have drawn flagrant calls in the NBA.

The NBA does not want fights. That makes sense.  It is, however, a massive overreaction to decide that in order to cut down on fights, a system has to be created in which the slightest bit of contact results in technicals—and in which players, coaches, the media and fans are screaming the next day that a flagrant should have been called.   

Rondo's foul isn't the only one in question here. I have watched flagrant fouls called for years now on plays that are nothing more than good, solid, clean, hard fouls.  It bothers me every single time, whether my team is the beneficiary of the call or not. 

I don't want to see fights in the NBA. I don't want to see players spilling into the crowd a few rows in front of where the commissioner may be sitting, and I certainly don't want to see players fighting with fans in the middle of a brawl. 

I do, however, want to see the toughness of the game, and I do want to see players enforce the no-layup rule when necessary, and make the other team earn the two points at the line.

Those two scenarios are not mutually exclusive.  Apparently, the NBA sees things differently, and it frightens me where this league is headed in terms of taking any sort of physical play out of the sport.