Joe Ingles vs. Russel Westbrook flagrant

[hgb]

Absolutely insane that Joe gets ejected for what is arguable a common foul and Westbrook somehow draws an offensive foul here.

IMHO there is no way to argue Joe's foul was a common foul. It was a completely obvious flagrant 1 at least, and I don't think flagrant 2 was totally unwarranted either. I would be calling for that if this was some Kings player undercutting Donovan in mid-flight.

I didn't really re-watch the Westbrook situation that much (regarding the offensive foul on Poeltl), but I guess you can't give a flagrant if the play was stopped, but it feels like they could've at least given him a technical.

 

[Agent#00]

refs don't like Joe

 

[LogGrad98]

Absolutely insane that Joe gets ejected for what is arguable a common foul and Westbrook somehow draws an offensive foul here.

Eh, he's a Laker now.

 

[LogGrad98]

IMHO there is no way to argue Joe's foul was a common foul. It was a completely obvious flagrant 1 at least, and I don't think flagrant 2 was totally unwarranted either. I would be calling for that if this was some Kings player undercutting Donovan in mid-flight.

I didn't really re-watch the Westbrook situation that much (regarding the offensive foul on Poeltl), but I guess you can't give a flagrant if the play was stopped, but it feels like they could've at least given him a technical.

The "foul" on Poetl was an excuse to not eject a key player for the Lakers. Watch it from different angles. Poetl literally just shuffles his feet in a circle. He didn't even step in front of Westbrick at all. Westbrick actually pushed his way around Poetl. It's a huge joke.

 

[NAOS]

Take a moment to bask in the Lakers collapse last night. The holiday season is upon us.

 

[infection]

Take a moment to bask in the Lakers collapse last night. The holiday season is upon us.

We’re probably gonna have to some @JazzAvenues Lakers threads in the Jazz forum this year.

 

[infection]

IMHO there is no way to argue Joe's foul was a common foul. It was a completely obvious flagrant 1 at least, and I don't think flagrant 2 was totally unwarranted either. I would be calling for that if this was some Kings player undercutting Donovan in mid-flight.

I didn't really re-watch the Westbrook situation that much (regarding the offensive foul on Poeltl), but I guess you can't give a flagrant if the play was stopped, but it feels like they could've at least given him a technical.

My issue with Ingles' foul is had Mitchell not tried to jump for a highlight dunk with a guy coming at him (as it would have happened 99 times out of 100 in that situation), nobody would have ever called that a flagrant. Joe "undercutting him" was a result of him jumping in the air with Joe already in motion toward him. The question is when in the sequence did Joe have reasonable understanding he was going airborne and when in that sequence could he have done anything about it? I probably wouldn't have a problem with that being a concensus flagrant 1 just based on how it ended, but it's one where you should be debating whether it's flagrant 1 or common foul, and not debating which kind of flagrant it is.

 

[LogGrad98]

We’re probably gonna have to some @JazzAvenues Lakers threads in the Jazz forum this year.

I wish he would do one for their meltdown last night. Would be epic.

@JazzAvenues

 

[LogGrad98]

My issue with Ingles' foul is had Mitchell not tried to jump for a highlight dunk with a guy coming at him (as it would have happened 99 times out of 100 in that situation), nobody would have ever called that a flagrant. Joe "undercutting him" was a result of him jumping in the air with Joe already in motion toward him. The question is when in the sequence did Joe have reasonable understanding he was going airborne and when in that sequence could he have done anything about it? I probably wouldn't have a problem with that being a concensus flagrant 1 just based on how it ended, but it's one where you should be debating whether it's flagrant 1 or common foul, and not debating which kind of flagrant it is.

This. Everyone needs to go watch it again. Joe is trying to stop and turn. He can't stop his momentum entirely and he essentially brushes against Mitchell's feet, not under his legs. It's a trailing contact, it's not a direct undercut. Ingles would need to defy the laws of physics to do any better than he did realistically. I'm fact just the act of bringing his arms down and turning away from him should have been enough to completely preclude a flagrant 2 since part of the definition of the F2 is "unnecessary AND excessive". Where in his trying to stop his own momentum and get out of the way is that "excessive". It's just beyond ridiculous prima facie.

 

[LogGrad98]

In the Lakers reddit one guy called Westbrick's 10 TO quadruple double a "cripple double".

They are not great Westbrick fans at all.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Joe's foul was just super careless. Maybe he didnt know Davion is an explosive athlete and he wasnt expecting that kind of takeoff, but he was being lazy in how he approached. There was 0% play for the ball and that's probably why he got thrown.

I guess for Russ's you can argue he attempted to go for the ball.

 

[NAOS]

Joe's foul was just super careless. Maybe he didnt know Davion is an explosive athlete and he wasnt expecting that kind of takeoff, but he was being lazy in how he approached. There was 0% play for the ball and that's probably why he got thrown.

I guess for Russ's you can argue he attempted to go for the ball.

He went for the ball as one would go for a nail whilst using a sledgehammer.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Joe's should have been a flagrant 1. It was a dangerous play and when you slow it down all of those plays look bad. F2 is nonsense and only because of the player landing badly. Joe looks worse because he didn't try and get in the play more if that makes any sense... the fact that he pulled back or stopped makes it look like he was solely undercutting the guy. I saw Facu undercut like five guys the other nigh and try and cobra kai Ricky the night before. He's tiny and no one went for the highlight play. This type of play happens all the time... if they really want to eliminate this type of stuff you get rid of the traditional charge where a guy jumps in front of a driver and goes limp. If they actually attempt a basketball defensive move its safer for everyone and better for the game.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I also remember Royce being tagged for a flagrant last year for swinging really hard but honestly only hitting the ball on Booker... Booker acted like a baby so it was called a flagrant. NBA officials struggle with consistency and not reacting to stuff that shouldn't matter. At least they are trying hard to get rid of the foul seeking behavior and giving more defenders the benefit of the doubt on verticality.

 

[Scat]

All you need to know is that a majority of the quotes from Sac fans thought the flagrant 2 on Ingles was uncalled for.

 

[hgb]

My issue with Ingles' foul is had Mitchell not tried to jump for a highlight dunk with a guy coming at him (as it would have happened 99 times out of 100 in that situation), nobody would have ever called that a flagrant. Joe "undercutting him" was a result of him jumping in the air with Joe already in motion toward him. The question is when in the sequence did Joe have reasonable understanding he was going airborne and when in that sequence could he have done anything about it? I probably wouldn't have a problem with that being a concensus flagrant 1 just based on how it ended, but it's one where you should be debating whether it's flagrant 1 or common foul, and not debating which kind of flagrant it is.

I still disagree. Joe gambled on what Mitchell would do, and got it wrong. This was definitely not a common foul, and F2 was IMHO not outrageous, even though it easily could've been F1 as well.

 

[hgb]

The "foul" on Poetl was an excuse to not eject a key player for the Lakers. Watch it from different angles. Poetl literally just shuffles his feet in a circle. He didn't even step in front of Westbrick at all. Westbrick actually pushed his way around Poetl. It's a huge joke.

I'm not saying Poeltl should've been called for an illegal screen, didn't really watch, but even if it was a bad call, I expect you can't give a flagrant when they first decided that it _was_ an offensive foul. If they can, I think it should've been either F1 or F2, for sure.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Lakers got some amazing calls end of the thunder game last night… and still lost. 1 BS call was overturned but it was followed by a second BS call that should have been a turnover and instead they got FTs. There was also a very quick 8 second call. Anyway… it’s nice to be the Lakers.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I also remember Royce being tagged for a flagrant last year for swinging really hard but honestly only hitting the ball on Booker... Booker acted like a baby so it was called a flagrant. NBA officials struggle with consistency and not reacting to stuff that shouldn't matter. At least they are trying hard to get rid of the foul seeking behavior and giving more defenders the benefit of the doubt on verticality.

I cant remember if it was Royce or Bogey last year, but someone got called for some ridiculous F1 late in the season, possibly playoffs, for a minor lowering of teh shoulder at halfcourt.

 

[Jazzmix]

Another great play by Lebron and the refs.