TrueHoop's take on the Miller-Face-Whack

[RPK]

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-39-152/Winners--Apparently--Hit-People-in-the-Head.html

Winners, Apparently, Hit People in the Head

April 29, 2009 11:51 AM

Tuesday night was a great night of NBA basketball, but this morning aren't there two plays emblazoned on your brain?

Rajon Rondo and Dwight Howard star in this story. They both made hard contact with opponent's heads and they both won games in a manner that could well have been helped by doing so. And they both got punishments that were well short of what the NBA rulebook apparently calls for.

I have already written about Dwight Howard's elbow to Samuel Dalembert's head. The rulebook couldn't be clearer that an automatic ejection is the remedy for an elbow to the head, and the referees can't say they didn't see it, because they assessed Howard a technical on the play.

The Rondo play was more complicated. Even before the game-winning foul, this was a surprise.

The Bulls were on the road, against the Boston Celtics, who generally play the NBA's most unified defense. Chicago, meanwhile, has a rookie coach who would contend in any NBA "least likely to diagram a killer game-winning play" contest. (When the Bulls had been needing big buckets in this series, mostly they had come from Ben Gordon or Derrick Rose creating on the fly.)

But coming out a timeout, down two in overtime with a mere 3.4 seconds left, the Bulls achieved something almost never seen in basketball: A wide-open crunch time layup, against a set defense. It happened because just about the whole Celtics defense stuck to Ben Gordon,

Let me pause a moment to tell you something David Thorpe taught us at Training Like a Pro: Don't go to the hoop underhanded. When you hold the ball palm up with your arm outstretched like a waiter holding a tray of drinks, the physics are bad. Any contact makes a miss likely, and you can't adjust your shot much side to side, up or down, or in any creative way as things develop.

If you flip that hand over, however, to a more normal shooting position, you can control the ball with one or two hands; finish with your choice of many layups, dunks, or floaters; lean right or left; and do a better job of finishing despite contact.

Brad Miller got some contact, all right, and sure enough missed his would-be game-tying bunny by a country mile.

But the replay clearly showed that Rajon Rondo -- the player who had abandoned Miller, who was setting a pick, to double Gordon -- recovered into the lane and smacked Miller right in the head from behind.

It was not, despite what many claimed afterward, a play on the ball.

Rondo had no play on the ball, which was a yard beyond his reach. So he hit what he could, and it worked beautifully.

Doc Rivers raved about the foul, and rightly so: If that's not going to be called a flagrant -- a common call for blows to the head that are not plays on the ball -- it's amazing. How else could a player who was well and truly beaten both prevent a wide-open layup, and reduce a player's likelihood of hitting his free throws?

As it was called a regular personal foul, Miller had to shoot the free throws himself, or be replaced by a Bull of Doc Rivers' choosing. Miller shot, and missed, while blinking again and again, apparently impaired by the fumes of the compound used to close the wounds in his mouth.

If it had been called a flagrant, Vinny Del Negro could have specified the shooter of his choice (in the playoffs, Ben Gordon, John Salmons, Derrick Rose and Tyrus Thomas are all over 80%), and the Bulls would have had the ball after the shots.

With a flagrant, the Bulls would have been favorites to win. Without a flagrant, a blow to the head of the guy shooting for the game is a savvy tactic.

I'm not suggesting it's an intentional Celtic strategy. But Brad Miller is awfully close in his comments to the Sun-Times:

''We got a lot of guys getting head shots this series,'' Miller said. ''There was blood on the floor. I don't know if they even cleaned it up. One tooth went into my lip. You have to ask them how many stitches they put in. Everybody has had to shake off these high hits. That's a good shot to take to the head. I didn't see it, but I felt it. Still no excuse.''

Not to read too much into unrelated plays by Howard and Rondo, but certainly today the ball's in the NBA's court. Having been so careful in recent years to make the game less about brutish defense, and more about offense and the beauty of the game, are these the new rules of engagement? Are heads fair game? And if so, as it works so well, can't we expect more of the same?

 

[TheStig]

RPK wrote:

Linkafied

Great link

 

[RPK]

TheStig wrote:

RPK wrote:

Linkafied

Great link

My bad. Link added.

 

[TheStig]

RPK wrote:

TheStig wrote:

RPK wrote:

Linkafied

Great link

My bad. Link added.

Its actually a pretty good article. I think the NBA does nothing but that really should have been a flagrant at the end. Rondo really had no play on the ball and his foul was unnecessary as there was a defender in front of miller to foul.

 

[PJ Brown]

Well argued. I wouldn't be shocked if Brad pops somebody in Game 6, not that I endorse such activities. He's been hit in the face twice now.

In a somewhat unrelated manner, the Bulls really do need to get physical with Rondo. Not hit him in the head in an unsportsmanlike manner, but I would definitely foul him hardly but fairly in the first quarter when he drives the lane. If they are going to play physical with you, and win because of it, you can't let them drive past you without doing something about it. Where's Norm Van Lier when we need him? He would have sage advice for these Bulls.

 

[wjb1492]

PJ Brown wrote:

Well argued. I wouldn't be shocked if Brad pops somebody in Game 6, not that I endorse such activities. He's been hit in the face twice now.

In a somewhat unrelated manner, the Bulls really do need to get physical with Rondo. Not hit him in the head in an unsportsmanlike manner, but I would definitely foul him hardly but fairly in the first quarter when he drives the lane. If they are going to play physical with you, and win because of it, you can't let them drive past you without doing something about it. Where's Norm Van Lier when we need him? He would have sage advice for these Bulls.

The problem now being, of course, that anything overly-physical might be construed as the Bulls retaliating and handled more sternly by the refs next game. And in basketball, it's always possible to be overly physical accidentally, with the game being so fast and having to make instant reactions to moves. If the Bulls do anything that even looks like an intentional "really" hard foul now I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the refs overreact.

 

[??? ??????]

I think the NBA has to suspend Rondo here, because that should have been a Flagrant 2, and the lack of a flagrant call lost the Bulls the game. (Ben Gordon probably would have made both of his free throws, and then he has about a 50/50 chance at making the game winning shot).

But they won't.

 

[dougthonus]

??? ?????? wrote:

I think the NBA has to suspend Rondo here, because that should have been a Flagrant 2, and the lack of a flagrant call lost the Bulls the game. (Ben Gordon probably would have made both of his free throws, and then he has about a 50/50 chance at making the game winning shot).

But they won't.

I agree.

In a somewhat unrelated manner, the Bulls really do need to get physical with Rondo. Not hit him in the head in an unsportsmanlike manner, but I would definitely foul him hardly but fairly in the first quarter when he drives the lane. If they are going to play physical with you, and win because of it, you can't let them drive past you without doing something about it. Where's Norm Van Lier when we need him? He would have sage advice for these Bulls.

Given what Miller has endured this series, I think he owes the Celtics several fouls where he may not be attempting to hurt them, but he swings with all the force he can muster and hits them in the head while they are airborne in an unsafe position, and if they happen to get hurt or land on their heads, or he draws blood while not going for the ball, then it would just be too bad, because apparently that's playoff basketball now not a flagrant foul warranting additional punishment.

Granted, such a foul will likely lead to his ejection and not help us win, but he owes them a few shots where someone is trying to get hurt.

 

[wjb1492]

??? ?????? wrote:

I think the NBA has to suspend Rondo here, because that should have been a Flagrant 2, and the lack of a flagrant call lost the Bulls the game. (Ben Gordon probably would have made both of his free throws, and then he has about a 50/50 chance at making the game winning shot).

But they won't.

I'm wondering if it might help the Bulls that Dwight Howard's elbow to the head happened the same day. That one was pretty bad as well - worse in a lot of ways, except that it didn't obviously cost Philly the game. So can the NBA afford to ignore two blatantly bad calls? I can see them making a distinction between an elbow to the head and "accidentally" getting someone in the face with an open hand on a drive to the basket - but at the same time that really would seem to draw a lot of attention to what Rondo did, and can the NBA afford to sanction that as an OK, just regular foul without setting a bad precedent?

 

[TheStig]

dougthonus wrote:

??? ?????? wrote:

I think the NBA has to suspend Rondo here, because that should have been a Flagrant 2, and the lack of a flagrant call lost the Bulls the game. (Ben Gordon probably would have made both of his free throws, and then he has about a 50/50 chance at making the game winning shot).

But they won't.

I agree.

In a somewhat unrelated manner, the Bulls really do need to get physical with Rondo. Not hit him in the head in an unsportsmanlike manner, but I would definitely foul him hardly but fairly in the first quarter when he drives the lane. If they are going to play physical with you, and win because of it, you can't let them drive past you without doing something about it. Where's Norm Van Lier when we need him? He would have sage advice for these Bulls.

Given what Miller has endured this series, I think he owes the Celtics several fouls where he may not be attempting to hurt them, but he swings with all the force he can muster and hits them in the head while they are airborne in an unsafe position, and if they happen to get hurt or land on their heads, or he draws blood while not going for the ball, then it would just be too bad, because apparently that's playoff basketball now not a flagrant foul warranting additional punishment.

Granted, such a foul will likely lead to his ejection and not help us win, but he owes them a few shots where someone is trying to get hurt.

It'll never happen but I thought Brad Miller was going to be our enforcer like AD was. It just hasn't materialized yet.

 

[dougthonus]

I think they'll upgrade them to flagrant 1 or flagrant 2s or whatever, but they won't do anything that effects the game unless either player picks up another flagrant foul adn gets enough points to warrant a suspension.

It's a shame, because in the Bulls case, the only way they rectify the is to suspend Rondo for game 6, but they won't dare.

 

[wjb1492]

NEW YORK -- The possibility emerged Wednesday that Dwight Howard could be watching Game 6 of the Magic-76ers series on television.

Rajon Rondo was under scrutiny, too, although his availability for Game 6 of the Celtics-Bulls series did not appear to be in as much jeopardy as Howard's.

It was a busy day Wednesday at the NBA league office, where officials in vice president of basketball operations Stu Jackson's office were reviewing two plays: Howard swinging his elbow at Philadelphia's Samuel Dalembert, and Rondo whacking Chicago's Brad Miller in the mouth.

"Both plays are under review," league spokesman Tim Frank said.
...

In Rondo's case, a suspension would be levied only if the league office upgrades the infraction to a Category 2 flagrant foul.

Rondo struck Miller in the face as Miller drove for a potential game-tying layup with two seconds left in Boston's 106-104 overtime victory, bloodying Miller's lower lip. Bulls coach Vinny Del Negro argued vehemently that a flagrant foul should have been called, but official Mark Wunderlich could be seen explaining to Del Negro that the referees believed Rondo was swiping at the ball.

"Rondo didn't come near the ball. He came right across his face. I agree that it is a hard playoff foul, but you still have to call it a flagrant and I'm sure that will be addressed," Del Negro said afterward.

After a lengthy delay to treat Miller's wound (his tooth pierced his lip, a laceration that later required stitches), Miller missed the first free throw, then committed a violation when his intentionally missed second foul shot did not hit the rim.

If Rondo's foul is upgraded to a flagrant-category 1, he would be assessed one flagrant foul point. Players earn an automatic one-game suspension if they accumulate four flagrant foul points during the postseason. If the foul is upgraded to a flagrant-2, Rondo would be suspended for Game 6 in Chicago on Thursday night.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/news/story?id=4111528

(Who needs ESPN when you've got Doug?)

 

[??? ??????]

This was called a flagrant 2, and this is no different than what Rondo did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fa07e36-fGM

 

[cool007]

I am so mad right now taht I want each and every player on the Bulls to be physical. I want them to foul so hard that they break their whatever. Then I dare NBA to suspend a guy on our team.

NBA better suspend Rondo for the game or they better re-play the overtime again.

Coz, this is playoffs - not regular season - where Bulls, if they had won, they had a chance to close out the series - it's a matter of do or die.

NBA better understand. I want the entire crowd at UC chanting for Rondo's head and chants for "Stern Sucks" etc.

I want to see atleast 1 hard foul per qtr if not more. I don't care if our whole team needs to be suspended and if we have to use gray/Tim thomas/Hunter etc to use those hard fouls.

Vinny also better wake the **** up. Usually players feed off of coach but our coach himself is pretty darn soft.

 

[??? ??????]

Is there any chance they would replay the end of game 5 if they upgraded it to flagrant?

Miller would likely have to take the free throws in the replay, as he wouldn't be injured. But it would still be 2 free throws and the ball.

 

[cool007]

I don't think they would replay just the last couple of seconds with Brad shooting free throws but it would be more appropriate if they did the Overtime (5min) of the game again.

I would love it if they just did Brad Miller's free throws and Bulls with the ball with 2 seconds left.

Or, why not just suspend Rondo 1 game???

If they don't do either, I think it will set a bad precedent in the game, what this will say is - you don't hit somebody in the face in the first 45 or so minutes of the game but when the game is close - at the end, you can do whatever you want- hit in the face, grab face, foul Hard so the guy breaks his teeth/jaw or whatever coz WE ARE NOT GOING TO CALL FLAGRANT ON YOU.

Then point to Bulls/celtics game #5.

 

[anorexorcist]

wjb1492 wrote:

I'm wondering if it might help the Bulls that Dwight Howard's elbow to the head happened the same day. That one was pretty bad as well - worse in a lot of ways, except that it didn't obviously cost Philly the game.

That elbow came early in the game. Dwight went on to have 24/24. Had he been tossed, the sixers would have probably won. So it did likely cost them the game.

 

[RC_Skinny22]

Here you can see the foul again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6JpEx_CqOc

Greetz Bullseye

 

[chi_hawks_23]

The more I watch that footage, the worse that foul looks.

If it were 1989, that would be a clean foul.

Today, that is a flagrant 2.

However, the NBA will not suspend Rondo. They wouldnt suspend him if even if he had decapitated Miller.

 

[Kush77]

I guess I'm in the minority when it comes to us Bulls fans. I didn't think the foul was that bad.

As a Bulls fan I wish it would of been a flagrant because it could of helped us win, but I don't think you make that call at that point of the game. I know if it was Rose that hacked Perkins in the face I wouldn't of wanted a flagrant called. Whether the C's would have got the call or not is a different story.

A lot of Bulls fans are furious over this. But I'm not for some reason.

I'm sad they lost the game, but I don't have a feeling of being robbed. Not like this was Hue Hollins or something.