What's new
By:

Joe Ingles vs. Russel Westbrook flagrant

hgb said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
infection said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hgb
Saint Cy of JFC said:
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.
Click to expand...
He went for the ball as one would go for a nail whilst using a sledgehammer.
 
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.
 
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.
 
infection said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top