Why wasn't a foul called on Bogut, regardless of what was called on Dwight? It was obvious and the call was reviewed. I don't get it. Bogut fouled Howard and Howard retaliated.
Shouldn't be compared to Jr. Suspension if happens won't be league imposed because of malicious intentions like JR's but because of points.
If Howard's suspended, Bogut should too, which would still put us in disadvantage, but if NBA is about fairness, that would be a fair call on that play if Howard is suspended.
Perplexing. Correct call after reviewing under the clear defined rules should have been Flagrant two and immediate ejection of Dwight and either Flagrant 1 or a tech to Bogut. They missed both calls badly.
I don't agree that what Bogut did would merit a flagrant 1 and I don't agree that what Dwight did should merit a flagrant 2. It should have been a foul on Bogut. A simple foul. Calling that play a foul would negate all of the other nonsense that happens. When you don't call a foul I think you call the flagrant on Dwight and then make a point of emphasis in the official meetings to fix this going forward.
I don't think you can "appeal." They get reviewed by the league and either upheld, overturned or upgraded. I'm not aware of a process by which a player or team can appeal a flagrant ruling.
I read the summary of the NBA rule book this afternoon and couldnt' find a clear explanation on appeals. If there's a time limit or if the official letter has been served can't be appealed. A lot of time has passed all the appeals I know of happen right after a game.
If my memory serves me right the Bucks appealed the second flagrant one of Zaza pachulia in the Bulls- Bucks series and it got overturned. That's what I remember but maybe the league overturned it on its own.
That's about where I'm at. I can't understand why Bogut wasn't called for the foul. Its perfectly obvious and the freakin' play was reviewed.
Sorry the rules are very very clear on what is a flagrant two. And what Dwight did was. Doesn't matter what happened before or after, according to the rules. Many times flagrants are called and they are retaliations. That's why I hate the refs so many times. They punish the player who retaliates but not the one who instigates.
That's why we should have biatching and whining about it every single time even if when we were winning. Cuban did. NBA rules are a joke.
This article suggests that teams can initiate the appeal. This situation is a bit different in that we don't want a review of last night's play. I'd imagine the Rockets would have already appealed the Dirk foul. http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...agrant-foul/hRjg4EZCDSxfBScgeeOTtI/story.html
Bogut should have been called a lot of things, moving screens, pushing, shoveling. If the game was called fairly, it wouldn't have led to the point that Howard was so frustrated to take the matter into his own hands. Shame on NBA.
I arleady posted it but if the Rockets have indeed a right to appeal and there is a time limit then they were incredibly stupid not to. It's Dwight. You know he will get himself in trouble with techs at the least. It could have happened a lot during the Clipps series as well.
Yeah. Every single overturn/ appeal I know of in the playoffs has happened the very next 1-2 days. Never I heard of one for a game so long ago. Maybe it has happened and I dont' know.
Oh, really? Here is the definition of a flagrant 2: What is "very very clear" about "unnecessary and excessive?" I could make an argument that Bogut's two handed push into the back of Howard was unnecessary (obviously) and excessive (by my standards.) The rule book doesn't list specifics. It is rather general and leaves a lot of room for interpretation which is why these things are often changed upon review by the league.
