What's new
By:

Jazz at Bulls 7:00 CST

candrew said:
I understand the league wants to protect players, especially when it comes to getting hit in the head - but that was the weakest flagrant foul call I've ever seen.

And yes, he was clearly going for the ball.
Click to expand...

I have no problem protecting players heads and calling flagrants when they're deserved. I do, however, have a problem when every hit to the head is an absolute flagrant. People are making this harder than it should be, it's not that hard to see (especially with replay) if a hit to the head is deserving a flagrant.

The rule is the rule, I just think it's weak af just like I think 50% of targeting calls in football are. When you play a physical sport sometimes your head can get hit.
 
White Chocolate said:
LaVine reminds me a lot of Westbrook. Both super athletic and erratic. Can get hot at times but generally take a ton of shots and score a ton of points on bad efficiency. Both not the best shooters but can score. You can’t and won’t win with that type of player as your best player.
Click to expand...
I agree that he takes bad shots and is erratic but he isn't all that inefficient. Not super efficient either but last season he was 47% from the field, 37% from three and 83% from the line on 6 attempts.
This year his overall field goal percentage is down so far (42%) but his three point shooting is up (39%) and his free throw percentage is about the exact same.

I bet he would be more efficient if he was getting the looks that a guy like Clarkson gets on the jazz team with the jazz system.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Bulls look like they are cohesive, play smart and aggressive, have great body language, play team ball and have an identity. Just need some talent and they will be contending.

I know people expected the Jazz to blow them out, but it is actually a good road win against an improving young team.
 
sahlensguy said:
Interesting way to celebrate with Mitchell at 1:15? He and Rudy have some different kind of chemistry going on. It's healthy right?
Click to expand...
I always wonder about that too.
I don't know what to think about it

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Archie Moses said:
He wasn't punched. He lost a contact. I've lost contacts dozen of times playing ball and never thought I was flagrant fouled.

Weak call.
Click to expand...
Your comment has nothing to do with my comment.
My comment was saying that getting hit in the arm is different than getting hit in the head.

Your comment also had nothing to do with the other posters comment you quoted
His was about players that would intentionally hurt players and make it look unintentional. (I touched on this also)

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Gameface said:
Don't tell me it's Derek. Please don't tell me it's Derek.
Click to expand...
It's derek.

And I wouldn't actually fight him since I like him (went to a game with him last year and had a great time actually) but his thoughts on gobert are the worst and I would want to fight someone who I didn't know if they were saying the crap he says.

He is like "of course has a good field goal percentage, he only dunks.". "Of course he gets rebounds and blocks and plays good D, he is 7 feet tall". "He can't catch the ball, can't shoot, can't dribble, has no coordination, etc"

But maybe there is hope for him. I had a conversation with him right after Trump was elected and he was super happy about Trump being president cause Trump was going to go after wealth inequality and the rich help the middle class and was going to drain the swamp and get rid of corruption.
I told him no one loves money and rich people more than Trump and trump was corrupt before getting elected. Do you think suddenly he is going to be a different person now that he has more power?

Will just this morning he was saying he wants Bernie to be the president. Freaking Trumper wanting Bernie to beat trump? That shows he can change lol

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
Your comment has nothing to do with my comment.
My comment was saying that getting hit in the arm is different than getting hit in the head.

Your comment also had nothing to do with the other posters comment you quoted
His was about players that would intentionally hurt players and make it look unintentional. (I touched on this also)

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to quote the other guy's comment.

You compared UFC punching to the head or the arm as being different. Obviously. So I responded he wasn't punched. He wasn't.

Yes, the head should be protected. It's a physical sport and the guy made a play on the ball and Rudy lost a contact. It wasn't that bad, man.
 
Archie Moses said:
I didn't mean to quote the other guy's comment.

You compared UFC punching to the head or the arm as being different. Obviously. So I responded he wasn't punched. He wasn't.

Yes, the head should be protected. It's a physical sport and the guy made a play on the ball and Rudy lost a contact. It wasn't that bad, man.
Click to expand...
You compared getting hit in the arm to getting hit in the head. Those are two different things.

Why did the refs call the flagrant last night? Do you think they would call the flagrant for the similar hit to the arm? Of course not. Two very different body parts.
You are better than that.

And like I said in my first post on this topic. I agree with you that dude was going for the ball. But he could also make it look like he was going for the ball and actually intentionally go for the head and try to hurt a guy and the refs not know. Therefore the rule should be that hard hits to the head, whether intentional or unintentional, are flagrant. Otherwise there is a slippery slope when trying to determine intent.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
I have no problem when a player gets all head and no ball getting a flagrant. You have to protect the guy when he's elevated. They can come down awkward. No need for a hack to take out a player. The play then becomes a risk/reward moment for the defender.
 
fishonjazz said:
You compared getting hit in the arm to getting hit in the head. Those are two different things.

Why did the refs call the flagrant last night? Do you think they would call the flagrant for the similar hit to the arm? Of course not. Two very different body parts.
You are better than that.

And like I said in my first post on this topic. I agree with you that dude was going for the ball. But he could also make it look like he was going for the ball and actually intentionally go for the head and try to hurt a guy and the refs not know. Therefore the rule should be that hard hits to the head, whether intentional or unintentional, are flagrant. Otherwise there is a slippery slope when trying to determine intent.



Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

The hit did no more harm to Rudy's head than it would have to his arm (other than losing a contact.)

Do you agree?

If so, then yeah, some hits to the head are the same as a hit to the arm. Obviously not all. The one to Rudy's wasn't bad.
 
Archie Moses said:
The hit did no more harm to Rudy's head than it would have to his arm (other than losing a contact.)

Do you agree?

If so, then yeah, some hits to the head are the same as a hit to the arm. Obviously not all. The one to Rudy's wasn't bad.
Click to expand...
Again, it isn't about how much harm it did or didnt do. It's about potential harm. Thats why you have rules and laws.
If I shoot at you and miss you don't get hurt at all. But I still get in big trouble because of what could have happened. You want to try to deter people from shooting each other.

If a player gets hit hard in the head but didn't get hurt the player committing the foul still gets a flagrant because of the potential harm. You want to deter players from hitting other players in the head. That is the whole point of calling a foul like the one last night a flagrant.


And to answer your first question in a literal sense, yes it did not harm than getting hit in the arm would have. He got a knot on his head and lost a contact. That doesn't happen if he gets hit on the arm.

Also a player up in the air getting hit in the head is more likely to cause the player to land badley than getting hit in the arm.

There is just no comparison between the two. It's apples to oranges bro
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Archie Moses said:
The hit did no more harm to Rudy's head than it would have to his arm (other than losing a contact.)

Do you agree?

If so, then yeah, some hits to the head are the same as a hit to the arm. Obviously not all. The one to Rudy's wasn't bad.
Click to expand...
You're ignoring the fact that players fall harder when getting knocked in the head while elevated than they do from a blow to an arm.
 
fishonjazz said:
Again, it isn't about how much harm it did or didnt do. It's about potential harm. Thats why you have rules and laws.
If I shoot at you and miss you don't get hurt at all. But I still get in big trouble because of what could have happened. You want to try to deter people from shooting each other.

If a player gets hit hard in the head but didn't get hurt the player committing the foul still gets a flagrant because of the potential harm. You want to deter players from hitting other players in the head. That is the whole point of calling a foul like the one last night a flagrant.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

I guess the disconnect is you're about potential and I'm about actuality.

To me, the hit wasn't bad, didn't hurt Rudy and happens. I'm ok with thinking that.
 
sahlensguy said:
You're ignoring the fact that players fall harder when getting knocked in the head while elevated than they do from a blow to an arm.
Click to expand...
He is ignoring many things here for some reason. I'm certain he knows better but has dug in and is committed to his stance at this point and there is no turning back now.
Don't think it's gonna matter what anyone says.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Archie Moses said:
I guess the disconnect is you're about potential and I'm about actuality.

To me, the hit wasn't bad, didn't hurt Rudy and happens. I'm ok with thinking that.
Click to expand...
I agreed with you about that play dude. Then I (and others) explained why the rule exists.

If I shoot at you and miss then do you think the law should go by potential or what actually happened. No one was hurt so I should have no consequences right?
Potential literally does matter.

The reason travelling exists is because the potential for a player to get an advantage.

If I travel right after inbounding the ball it doesn't help me or hurt my opponent but is still against the rules. Rules and laws exist because of potential.

I can drink and drive and hurt no one. But I would still get arrested for drinking and driving because of potential.

I have seen goal tending calls where the ball was 100% certain to come off the rim for a missed shot but the player touched the ball before if came off the rim. It's called because of the potential for a player to effect the outcome of the basket even if the actually reality on that particular play didn't effect the outcome of the basket.

That will be my last post on this topic. I can't be any clearer.

I mean with your thinking there shouldnt even be "and 1's". The ball went in so who cares that the foul occurred. Didn't actually affect anything.

Also, only intentional fouls should be called fouls.
If you go to for a shot and I try to block it but actually hit your forearm then that should be a foul cause it was unintentional.


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top