Flagrant II on Artest is BS!

[WayOutWest]

I can't believe the huge difference between the refs in the EC and the ones in the WC.  Artest got the shaft and the Celtics get a free pass.  Oh yea....Lebron is amazing!

[Reality]

Your continued progress is encouraging.
It could be amended to "I can't believe the huge difference between the refs in the WC and the ones in the WC."
Apparantly blocking a Lakers shot is going to be called a Flagrant.

Can't wait for the still shots.  All indications are 1st thing Artest makes contact with is the ball.

[westkoast]

Even Kobe said after the game that he didn't think it was a flagrant 2, MAYBE a flagrant one but that he is an '80s baby' and that was just a good hard playoff foul.

They will reduce it.  No big deal.

[Reality]

Kobe would have the smugness slapped right out of him by either the 80's Celts, Sixers or Pistons.

Here is the contact by Artest.

[westkoast]

Um if you are trying to say there was not excessive contact, you are wrong.  Go play in 405 traffic.

[Reality]

Um if you are trying to say there was not excessive contact, you are wrong.  Go play in 405 traffic.

I'm sure you'll provide pictorial proof.  Since it is your style to always provide proof.

[westkoast]

Um if you are trying to say there was not excessive contact, you are wrong.  Go play in 405 traffic.

I'm sure you'll provide pictorial proof.  Since it is your style to always provide proof.

As soon as I they put up video ill be glad to.  What he did was excessive contact especially at that point in the game.  The referees themselves explained to Ron Artest the reason for that call and he agreed.  If that isn't evidence enough the contact was excessive I don't know what is.

Though it is your style to completely ignore proof and spin like a top.

[Reality]

Um if you are trying to say there was not excessive contact, you are wrong.  Go play in 405 traffic.

I'm sure you'll provide pictorial proof.  Since it is your style to always provide proof.

As soon as I they put up video ill be glad to.  What he did was excessive contact especially at that point in the game.  The referees themselves explained to Ron Artest the reason for that call and he agreed.  If that isn't evidence enough the contact was excessive I don't know what is.

Though it is your style to completely ignore proof and spin like a top.

Stu Jackson:
"The Artest play did not fit the criteria of a flagrant-2 -- unnecessary and excessive. It was unnecessary, but certainly not excessive," Jackson said.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/news/story?id=4154496

[westkoast]

Um if you are trying to say there was not excessive contact, you are wrong.  Go play in 405 traffic.

I'm sure you'll provide pictorial proof.  Since it is your style to always provide proof.

As soon as I they put up video ill be glad to.  What he did was excessive contact especially at that point in the game.  The referees themselves explained to Ron Artest the reason for that call and he agreed.  If that isn't evidence enough the contact was excessive I don't know what is.

Though it is your style to completely ignore proof and spin like a top.

Stu Jackson:
"The Artest play did not fit the criteria of a flagrant-2 -- unnecessary and excessive. It was unnecessary, but certainly not excessive," Jackson said.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/news/story?id=4154496

Um.... It's still a flagrant one.  Had the contact not been excessive it would have been a REGULAR foul no?

The difference between the two rules is not the amount of force used.  It is whether the player who fouled the other was intentionally trying to hurt that player.  You can use excessive force on a player with trying to cause injury to them.  Like Perkins for example.  What he did was excessive and he got a flagrant 1 but he was not trying to injure a player.

Again though, this won't compute on that Apple IIe you got up in your noggin.

[WayOutWest]

Even Kobe said after the game that he didn't think it was a flagrant 2, MAYBE a flagrant one but that he is an '80s baby' and that was just a good hard playoff foul.

They will reduce it.  No big deal.

I really didn't think it was even a flagrant.  Good hard foul but Gasol was up in the air and lost his balance then he came down hard.  Ron made a play on the ball and there was no excessive contact or force.

[Reality]

WayOutWest I really didn't think it was even a flagrant.  Good hard foul but Gasol was up in the air and lost his balance then he came down hard.  Ron made a play on the ball and there was no excessive contact or force.

No, B-Rad claims the foul was excessive and he has proof. 

westkoast you may have noticed an attempt to bring the boards standards "up" recently.
Btw, here is the NBAs shortened version:
A flagrant 1 is unnecessary contact. This is usually when a defensive player swings and makes hard contact with the offensive player or makes hard contact and then follows through. A flagrant foul 2 is unnecessary and excessive contact. This usually has a swinging motion, hard contact, and a follow through.

[westkoast]

WayOutWest I really didn't think it was even a flagrant.  Good hard foul but Gasol was up in the air and lost his balance then he came down hard.  Ron made a play on the ball and there was no excessive contact or force.

No, B-Rad claims the foul was excessive and he has proof. 

westkoast you may have noticed an attempt to bring the boards standards "up" recently.
Btw, here is the NBAs shortened version:
A flagrant 1 is unnecessary contact. This is usually when a defensive player swings and makes hard contact with the offensive player or makes hard contact and then follows through. A flagrant foul 2 is unnecessary and excessive contact. This usually has a swinging motion, hard contact, and a follow through.

The foul was excessive, my proof is it being called a flagrant 1.  If it wasn't then it would have been a simple foul.  Ron Artest went after the ball and followed through.  Go fire up the TiVO.

Bringing up WOW's opinion hardly is gospel.  Phil Jackson said he didn't think it was a flagrant 2 but said they had to make some type of flagrant call because there was a possibility of Pau getting injured.....but saying that doesn't make or break my argument.

Save the bring the board standards up.  If that was the case you would finally get banned.  Taking a break from posting here was great.  I certainly didn't miss your stupidity.

[Reality]

The foul was excessive, my proof is it being called a flagrant 1.  If it wasn't then it would have been a simple foul.  Ron Artest went after the ball and followed through.  Go fire up the TiVO.

and:  westkoast

As soon as I they put up video ill be glad to.  What he did was excessive contact especially at that point in the game.  The referees themselves explained to Ron Artest the reason for that call and he agreed.  If that isn't evidence enough the contact was excessive I don't know what is.

and last but not least: 

Though it is your style to completely ignore proof and spin like a top. 

Word for word from the NBA rulebook:
"Section IV--Flagrant Foul
a. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be unnecessary, a flagrant foul--penalty (1) will be assessed.

b. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpret-ed to be unnecessary and excessive, a flagrant foul--penalty (2) will be assessed."

[westkoast]

The foul was excessive, my proof is it being called a flagrant 1.  If it wasn't then it would have been a simple foul.  Ron Artest went after the ball and followed through.  Go fire up the TiVO.

and:  westkoast

As soon as I they put up video ill be glad to.  What he did was excessive contact especially at that point in the game.  The referees themselves explained to Ron Artest the reason for that call and he agreed.  If that isn't evidence enough the contact was excessive I don't know what is.

and last but not least: 

Though it is your style to completely ignore proof and spin like a top. 

Word for word from the NBA rulebook:
"Section IV--Flagrant Foul
a. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be unnecessary, a flagrant foul--penalty (1) will be assessed.

b. If contact committed against a player, with or without the ball, is interpret-ed to be unnecessary and excessive, a flagrant foul--penalty (2) will be assessed."

Excessive with the intent to INJURE another player.  That is how the distinction is made by this league and specifically Stu Jackson.  Perkins was going to be charged with a flagrant 2.  He ended up getting a flagrant 1.  Reason being is they did not feel he was trying to harm anyone but his elbows were unnecessary and excessive.  He was trying to fight through a screen.  Derek Fisher received a flagrant 2 and a suspension because clearly he was trying to hurt Luis Scola.   He was also trying to 'fight through a screen'. See the difference in the rulling?

Excessive and unnecessary can be used in conjunction.  Fouling a player really hard who is going to the hoop can be czlled unnecessary because the amount of force used was excessive to make sure he didn't make it.  You could fart on soft serve Pau Gasol to get him to miss a layup. Ron Artest did not need to throw his arms and body into Pau Gasol like that at that point in the game.

[WayOutWest]

westkoast you may have noticed an attempt to bring the boards standards "up" recently.

Too bad you refuse to join the attempt.