I've been a proponent that the fact that the NBA has become a very soft league looking more to protect its players on hard fouls, especially their superstars.
Most of the time, the flagrant foul calls are definitely good hard fouls and should be called a foul and that's all.
In tonight's overtime game though Rajon Rondo clearly should have been called for a flagrant foul on Brad Miller.
I understand that the officials didn't want to make it seem like they were deciding the game, but that play by Rondo has to be called a flagrant.
A majority of flagrant foul calls these days are being called by the way players land and not by the actual play on the ball. In these situations, it looks like a harder foul than it actually is.
Case in point Trevor Ariza's foul on Rudy Fernandez. That was not a flagrant but it was called one. Ariza went for the ball got mostly ball a little bit of Fernandez arms which caused the fall. Ariza's hard foul on Fernandez.
Even in tonight's game the flagrant foul given to Dwyane Wade was an absolute joke. These officials constantly make terrible flagrant foul calls, but the time they actually are called upon to make the right call they blatantly blow it.
David Stern even though he wasn't able to see the play which may be he should have bothered looking at it because his mind may have been changed. Secondly, there's no sincerity from Stern about the situation.
Stern is quoted as saying “I was in Orlando, but I was reliably informed it was not a flagrant foul; our referees do the best they can in these situations.”
This quote is taken from Yahoo titled "NBA: No Penalty for Rondo's Hard Foul On Miller."
There's two things wrong with the statement by Stern. First of all NBA officials are constantly making terrible judgment calls on flagrant fouls. The second part is Stern was supposedly reliably informed. So the question is who informed him?
Even Charles Barkley believes that it was wrong not to punish Rondo for the foul. Another thing is if it wasn't such a bad foul how come Brad Miller needed seven stitches and lost a tooth.
Rondo's foul is the definition of a flagrant foul regardless if the action was done intentionally or unintentionally. Rondo made no play on the ball and grabbed Miller by the mouth.
Even more infuriating was the comment made by Stu Jackson on why it wasn't a flagrant "We felt Rondo was making a basketball play and going for the ball after a blown defensive assignment by the Celtic team.
“In terms of the criteria that we use to evaluate a flagrant foul penalty one, generally we like to consider whether or not there was a windup, an appropriate level of impact and a follow-through.
"And with this foul, we didn’t see a windup, nor did he follow through. So for that reason we’re not going to upgrade this foul to a flagrant foul penalty one.”
Mr. Jackson, are we watching the same play? Even the announcers who were watching the play knew this should have been called a flagrant foul and knew there would be controversy after it, but to completely ignore the facts is ridiculous.
Rondo made no play on the ball. His follow through that Jackson seemed to be missing resulted in stitches for Miller. So, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Stern we're not idiots and neither is Charles Barkley.
Rondo's foul fit the definition of either a flagrant foul or an intentional foul, take your pick, but to do nothing about it that is what is moronic.