All flagrant fouls are reviewed by the league (rulebook states this.) There is nothing specific about a team appealing, so I think this may be a misuse of the word appeal. A team probably gives information to the league pertinent to their review, but I don't think a team has to initiate an appeal.
NBA rule 19383b: Bogut, Andrew and Green, Draymond are not capable of defensive fouls. Any contact on the opposing player shall NOT be called, unless an offensive foul is assigned to the opposing player. ESPN commentators shall refer to any contact as "effective defense". Retaliation shall be met with immediate review and suspension of opposing player.
Yes. Both unnecessary and excessive. And above the neck makes it unsportmanlike. It wasn necessary to throw his elbow becaues it wasn't on the play to the ball and it was excessive. Dont' blame me this is the way this action has be always interpreted. Let's hope fothe best.
justtx was correct about flagrant fouls being reviewed as a matter of course. Here are the factors in determining whether it was a (1) or (2):
Ok thanx. Couldn't find confirmation one way or the other. I remember Zaza saying they would appeal and was confident would be overturned but maybe appeal means as you say just putting your case forward to the league with evidence. And perpahs they give priority to flagrants that mean suspension in the very next game as Zaza's and that's why Dwight's case didn't receive so much attention and need to get overturned at that time.
It wasn't necessary for Bogut to push him in the back and it was excessive because Dwight was trying to plant and could have been injured. Flagrant 2 for Bogut. Don't tell me that this is always how it's been interpreted because last night a long time official (Joey Crawford) interpreted differently than you are right now. It's fine that you are being "objective" here and saying he should be suspended. I'm not even saying you are wrong that it can be interpreted as a flagrant 2. But you are CERTAINLY wrong if you think it is consistently interpreted in any way. This is the biggest complain fans, coaches, commentators, etc. have about the NBA; inconsistency with calls. You need to look no further than game 4 of the first round between the Mavs and Rockets where Tyson Chandler threw a freaking punch at the back of Dwight Howard. A closed fist punch! They called a double tech and no flagrants at all. Don't give me this objective fan nonsense about how the rule is "always" interpreted. You are a good poster, not bashing you, but you are just wrong if you think there is any consistency with the NBA on foul calls.
That's an extreme extreme reach. In this way every single foul would be a flagrant two . Thing is Bogut's wasn't excessive. Every time a player is on a court he is in risk of getting injured esp a center banging in thepost.
I was being sarcastic about Bogut to illustrate that the language of that rule is no "very very clear." Of course it wasn't a flagrant 2. That was the least important part of that post lol.
But avery clear can be made that Dwight's was excessive while Bogut's wasn't. That's the difference. One thing to push in the chest one other to throw your arm to someone's face. Not saying that the refs should have absolutely called it and it waas a disgrace if they hopefully had missed . I have seen far worse not being called even for a foul. But at the second the ref saw it and decided to call it it was a flagrant two nothing less. That's why there is the replay center adn the league reviewing so we have as possible consistency. The problem is that if the refs don't even call a foul it is extremely rare that the league on its own will call a punishment. And if they do it is usually something ridiculous like a simple small fine. And the other team has already suffered and the refs missing blatant fouls while calling others have already influenced a game.
1. The severity of the contact: not particularly severe 2. Whether or not the player was making a legitimate basketball play: probably not a basketball play though one could argue that he was going for the loose ball before the elbow. 3. Whether, on a foul committed with a player's arm or hand, the fouling player wound up and/or followed through after making contact: questionable but I don't think Dwight wound up. 4. The potential for injury resulting from contact (e.g., a blow to the head and a foul committed while a player is in a vulnerable position): I don't think there was much potential for injury resulting from this play but any contact above the shoulders could carry a potential for injury. 5. The severity of any injury suffered by the offended player: none. 6. The outcome of the contact (e.g., whether it led to an altercation): none. The analysis is vague but I don't think the NBA will change it to a (2).
Again I point you to Tyson Chandler throwing a PUNCH in a game which is supposed to be an automatic suspension. The NBA made a point to say "no further discipline." You can believe Dwight should be suspended, but it's just wrong to say the NBA has consistency on these things. JVG was harping on that side of it all night.
I was saying the opposite. Sorry my english is not good enough. The league doesn't have consistency and often misses calls that should be flagrant two fouls. Not only against the Rockets. That's why they have now the replay and the review to have as possible consistency as they can.Supposedly. As long there is the human element in reffing there will be unfairness I think.
When do they release this information? I thought the ref reports usually come out at like 8 the next day? He's going to be suspended, I have a hard time believing otherwise. Very stupid mistake on Howard's part, and unfortunately he has made many of them. Howard gets beat up, no doubt about it, but he is mentally weak when it comes to the physicality aspect of the game. Remember Shaq's story about Hakeem? Shaq would hit him hard and Dream would simply smile and say, "good move, big fella." Howard gets too frustrated. That's what they want (obviously) to frustrate him to do something stupid. It's absolutely ridiculous that he has had 3 flagrant fouls, one in each series (albeit the Mavs one was ridic and I can't believe it wasn't rescinded).
I showed the vine replay to several impartial Phoenix Suns fans here my work (in Phoenix) and they said they think flagrant 1. This means pretty much nothing, except that someone isn't a "homer" for thinking this shouldn't be a flagrant 2. We're at the mercy of the NBA on this one - which is a place NO ONE should ever want to be.
Westbrook Flagrant foul was more excessive than Dwight's. The league reviewed and reclassified it as a Flagrant 1. This is the inconsistency in which justtxyank is talking about.
Yes, but the league office reviews are also inconsistent which I guess is where we disagree. No way what Howard did is a flagrant 2 if Tyson Chandler throwing a punch (in a similar, frustrated retaliation) isn't even a flagrant.
