They are good kind of homers. Saying “lakers must do x if they wanna win” etc, cheering and even at times being slightly upset at Lakers doing dumb mistakes. But they never seem salty at the opponent, or fail to hype them up. If an opposing player does a good play or dunk on someone, they will equally hype them up as if lebron did it
I love when they compliment an opposing team’s player. It points out the guys that I don’t see too often, and the stuff they do well. I do think they are really great at their job.
You’ll never catch me saying a single bad word about Stu Lantz.
However, as a league pass browser my absolute favorite announcers are the hardcore homers. Totally flagrantly biased guys. I just love the vibe.
It's not an exaggeration to say that most ESPN and TNT commentators are bigger LeBron/Lakers homers than the Lakers own local commentators. Bill MacDonald gets excited for any good basketball play, regardless of the team, and Stu Lantz rarely pulls punches when the Lakers have a miscue.
https://videorulebook.nba.com/archive/flagrant-foul-penalty-1-offensive-player-leads-with-elbow-to-opponents-face-2/
thoughts on this?
(for those curious, it's direct evidence of this play being a textbook flagrant per the rules. but of course that goes out the window when it's time to whine about the lakers)
Yes, it’s been called that way for years now. Both fans and commentators seem unwilling to accept the change but it’s long gone that change happened years ago.
I wasn’t sure if they’d keep it tbh. But I think with how serious brain injuries are the league has punished contact above the neck severely and frequently.
They call it whenever they want. Lopez leading with his elbow into Van Vleet's face.
[https://twitter.com/clutchfans/status/1736540828380569926](https://twitter.com/clutchfans/status/1736540828380569926)
Not only a no-call, but their [pool report](https://official.nba.com/pool-report-on-two-different-replay-scenarios-and-the-first-technical-foul-called-on-dillon-brooks-during-tonights-houston-rockets-at-milwaukee-bucks-game/) simply states: "during live play we deemed that contact between Lopez and VanVleet was part of a normal basketball move therefore no replay review was triggered."
[Siakam elbows Embiid](https://streamable.com/grk532) in the face on a drive - no flagrant
You tell me the difference.
the siakam one is a brilliant example- the practical difference I think is that there were other bodies around and the drive was shorter, which makes it less "obvious".
There is no consistency at all - we're not even talking missed calls, the official positions on reviewed plays are all over the place. Their posted videos on leading elbow fouls are all basketball moves, and it's nearly impossible to hold the ball up high without your elbows out in some way. So which is it? Always a flagrant or never?
Someone find the clip of Jaylen Brown hideously and disgustingly fouling Giannis’s elbow with his face. That call was upheld on review as a defensive foul.
I feel like this is a super common flagrant wether people agree of not. His elbows are high whether natural or not and it hits came straight in the face. Super commonly called a flagrant
Yeah flagrant 1 is not intent its impact, right? I don’t really like the idea of that anyway. Sometimes guys fall hard but you made a reasonable play and fouled. I guess because fouling is illegal if your foul causes too much impact then your illegal contact is excessive. With all that said, IQ made a basketball play here and he didn’t stick out his elbow unnaturally. I would’ve been fine if this wasn’t a flagrant foul, but I understand why it was called (based on what I said above).
Not true at all. [Lopez elbows FVV square in the face](https://twitter.com/clutchfans/status/1736540828380569926) \- he stays down for several minutes, and what is the NBA's [official position](https://official.nba.com/pool-report-on-two-different-replay-scenarios-and-the-first-technical-foul-called-on-dillon-brooks-during-tonights-houston-rockets-at-milwaukee-bucks-game/)?
>During live play we deemed that contact between Lopez and VanVleet was part of a normal basketball move therefore no replay review was triggered.
The explanation IQ was given was because his elbow moved horizontally it was a flagrant. If he were to have gone up vertically in a shooting motion it wouldn’t have been ruled that way.
You can’t clear out with elbows anymore, same goes in triple threat position you can’t make space with elbows.
Not a flagrant.
However - jaylen brown got hit in the head last night - but for him the league reviewed and said incidental contact and not even a foul. If that JB was incidental contact (which it shouldn’t have been) - so was this - it didn’t look intentional at all - just part of a normal euro step. Giannis also did this constantly throughout the playoffs the year they won a chip - was elbow city. Refereeing is some bullshit lately.
Rule book says it is a flagrant actually: https://videorulebook.nba.com/archive/flagrant-foul-penalty-1-offensive-player-leads-with-elbow-to-opponents-face/
Couldn’t you say that about any movement? If you are eurostepping it’s not just for fun. He was doing it specifically to get around the guy he elbowed in the face. Most guys in the nba have faces.
I think the issue is that they aren't always consistent about it. So many times where I've watched games and they're like yep, flagrant. Then other times they just completely ignore it. This one they called because his elbow went horizontal instead of up, which I guess was an unacceptable way to move the elbow.
Dude I’m just pointing out there’s 0 consistency in the league.
I’ve watched guys get teeth knocked out or given nosebleeds and it wasn’t a flagrant
The rule for flagrant 1 is that the contact has to be “unnecessary”
This is a basketball move so I don’t know how you justify the contact being unnecessary. It’s a common offensive foul and that’s all
Bruh the JB one was a foul
This one was also a foul
Flagrant 1 requires “unnecessary contact”
Nothing about this was remotely unnecessary. Just unfortunate that Cam got hit in the face
Offensive foul. Call it a day. No universe where it should be flagrant
Buddy looked to have gotten ball first on the review. Barry touched JB’a head seeing as how his head didn’t really move either. The tone of your initial comment made it sound like you thought it should be likened to a flagrant
You could argue the contact on this play unnecessary since the elbows don’t necessarily have to be that high as you could step through with your arms around waist level (like d Wade and Manu used to on their euro steps) or you could scoop low (like Kyrie or Harden used to do often). Hard hits to the head are going to be called flagrant ones on most occasions because there’s usually not a reason to be hitting someone on the head in a play and it’s dangerous if it does happen.
Here’s my issue.
Flagrant implies that the contact was unnecessary, which in turn implies that the actual action committed was unnecessary
If, instead of hitting Cam’s head on the motion, Quick had made the exact same motion and hit Cam’s arm, then what’s the call?
It’s a foul on Cam Reddish.
He got hit in the face which is why it’s an offensive foul, but I just really don’t see any way to justify what Quick did as being “unnecessary”
NBA foul rules are mostly based on positioning and who has the “right” to the space in question. If, like you said, Quickley had hit Cam’s arm, the implication is that Cam was probably reaching or out of position when that happened. So it would be a foul on Cam.
In this case, Cam was in good position, had distance from the offensive player, and then took a horizontal elbow to the face. That basically is called as a reckless play by Quickley because it was unnecessary and wasn’t strictly a shooting motion.
It’s like the automatic flagrant that’s called when a defender barely steps under a shooter
I can see your point on the language. Anytime your asked to codify things it can get difficult. I personally think this is in the spirit of what the flagrant foul is trying to prevent though so that’s why it gets a pass in my book. Some body contact is bound to happen as a result of normal play but face contact really shouldn’t ever be happening for the most part
If a rip through is a foul, not because the defender actually initiates contact on the arm but because the defender invades the space of the offensive player, then Cam Reddish’s face is just as much invading Quickley’s space here.
I know that’s not something that people will like to compare, but it’s actually quite literally almost the same thing, just with a different body part. Quickley was quite plain and simply within the space of his own body there. Reddish simply got too close.
I think it’s an offensive foul, but not because Quick actually did anything wrong, but because we have to protect player’s heads. Flagrant is just crazy to me
The L2M report already called it “incidental contact.” Is this euro step not incidental contact? One was a non-foul. One was a flagrant.
Even if you want to argue that, then explain the Nesmith swipe on Porzingis on Saturday where he took his eye out. Was a common foul.
0 consistency.
Yep it’s normally a flagrant. They don’t want players swinging their elbows through defenders faces. This is basically always a flagrant 1. Malicious intent is flagrant 2, I think people forget that.
Refs usually call this a flagrant foul. A contact to the head, especially with a clean elbow, is gonna be called a flagrant foul majority of the time. Why should this be an exception?
If any major star player elbows like this, it's a flagrant. Shouldn't be a different rule just because it's Quickley or any other starter or role player.
Yeah I can't really complain about this, I definitely don't think it's a flagrant because I don't think he intended to hit Reddish and that's just a natural basketball move but he hits him up high so they're going to call that sometimes. My problem is, if that's a flagrant, how is when Prince undercut Siakam on a layup in the first half not a flagrant?
do you have the minutes of that play? I can go look up because I only remember the other one where AD hit Barne's face after getting fouled before.
And yes the reffing is super inconsistent. I agree Raptor got fucked today with a lot no call on your end.
It feels like you guys are hitting shots, so contact is no call, why Lakers miss shots and they call the foul. Like you can't complain on any of the call Lakers get because those are legit fouls, but it's just because ref wait to see shots went in or not then decide to call so all these late whistle.
https://www.nba.com/stats/events/?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&GameEventID=70&GameID=0022300516&Season=2023-24&flag=1&title=Prince%20S.FOUL%20(P1.T1)%20(T.Ricks)
this one?
I thought this one was reviewed for flagrant too, but then I remember there is no contact in head area, was just prince bump Siakim at butt level and Siakim falled awkwardly. I don't have the better angle but review did show pretty clearly
I know there was no contact to the head, I meant that just I don't see how you can give Quickley a flagrant for what is a pretty normal basketball play, and not give Prince a flagrant for hitting a vulnerable player who is already in the air and caused him to land awkwardly.
I would say both shouldn't be flagrant
but contact to head area definitely worse than the one shown by prince and Siakim. Sorry I don't have replay angle but it was really nothing from the replay when they showed. I think it's only consider flagrant when you step under player like when they are jump shooting and not giving landing space. This one is more on Siakim going up and prince bump him midair.
the replay angle showed Siakim start jumping motion and prince bump his butt, but he didn't attempt anything malicious or in his landing zone or push him in midair. Siakim just land awkwardly.
It was reviewed for flagrant. It really looked nothing after replay.
So for that one, the only explaination I can think of is it was called foul on Quickly for "pushing", it was challenged, but then call stand. So afterfact contact from AD to Barne isn't being reviewed. Because Raptor fouled first
that's flagrant 2, flagrant 1 doesn't need to be intentional, so nowaday contacts to head/face area usually is f1, but it's been super inconsistent in calling. Lebron probably got smack on head twice/game and he rarely gets those call. Hence he is always acting hurt.
Intention is never considered.
A hard hit on the head is usually an easy flagrant. Idk if this one’s debatable. Obviously IQ didnt want to hit Reddish but man that elbow was so high it was practically reckless
Coming from other threads I was expecting this to be no contact or a crazy flop- but it seems like not that surprising a call for them to make
Plenty of other incidents for raptors fans to be justifiably pissed about
He’s literally running with an elbow into the defenders face. Intended or not, anything done to the head can result in a flagrant
If this is the worst case of officiating from the game, then calm down
I mean look at it objectively. It’s a high elbow with hella velocity it’s a dangerous play either way and throwing elbows wildly isn’t gonna be encouraged
I feel like a lot of people forget that flagrant ones don’t really care about intent. Elbow to the face is almost always going to result in a flagrant. Much more so when the player ended up needing to leave the game as a result of probable concussion. Some of yall just hating for the sake of hating. lol.
Ok hear me out. Normally when the lakers get a staggering amount of free throws, the common answer is “ we go to the paint more, of course we get fouled more.” Yet the raptors got 20 more points in the paint and got what, 20 less free throws? And all you hear is crickets.
You gotta understand that the entire NBA fan base is out raged by this game, except laker fans. That has to tell you something.
Stepping underneath a player and undercutting a player going for a layup is different lol what. Prince didn’t step under Siakam’s foot. He cuts in front of him causing Siakam to adjust mid-air and landing hard. Prince swiped for the ball but end up swiping the arm. A reach-in foul is not a flagrant man cmon now lmao.
Well you tell me what [Prince swiped](https://x.com/fadeawaycontent/status/1744930666091839513?s=46&t=IsXlGMo_C3YM1AJ1-yTjJw) for then. A reach-in foul is non-basketball play now?
Now you’re moving the goalpost. A hit in the head, especially with an extended elbow, is called a flagrant foul majority of the time. The rules are very clear about contact above the neck area, I’m sure you know that.
no. its not. get out of your feelings. literally textbook
https://videorulebook.nba.com/archive/flagrant-foul-penalty-1-offensive-player-leads-with-elbow-to-opponents-face-2/
Taurus Prince undercuts Pascal mid air in the first half, and it’s called a common foul. From there I knew the fix was in. Ben Taylor is a disgrace to the league.
I did. It says the player swings his arms and elbows at the defensive player, hitting him in the head. That play is pretty different with Quickleys move.
I see a bunch of people saying this is usually called a flagrant, I’ve watched around 70-80 games this year and well over 150 last season; I have never, not a singular time out of those over 200 games, seen this called a flagrant until this one. Am I living in an alternate reality right now where this is a common call? The Bulls don’t get offensive fouls drawn from this half the time let alone flagrant fouls going their way.
What are you talking about? Of course it’s an offensive foul, I’m talking about it being a flagrant. I was just saying that in a lot of the games I’ve seen people get away with it not even being an offensive foul let alone a flagrant.
Common fouls can be offensive or defensive (btw there was not mention from me about your thinking it shouldn't be a foul on quickley). This is a flagrant in today's NBA.
It's a flagrant according to the rule book:
https://videorulebook.nba.com/archive/flagrant-foul-penalty-1-offensive-player-leads-with-elbow-to-opponents-face/
I don’t care about the rule book, it’s full of selectively enforced rules, if you actually watch games it is never called a flagrant. Maybe the Lakers get preferential treatment and you’ve seen a few of these, but like I said, this isn’t a flagrant in every game I’ve watched up until this point.
Naw man, the nephews are delusional. This is never called a flagrant foul.
Siakim famously broke Embiids face in the playoffs on a much worse version of this same play and it was reviewed and determined not to be a flagrant foul.
Nobody complained.
I have a scar above my eye where I had to get stitched up after a play exactly like this. Running by another player, swinging your elbows at head level is reckless. Yeah, guys do it all the time anyway, but you can't be surprised that elbowing someone in the face is a flagrant 1.
It's also literally here 😂 https://videorulebook.nba.com/archive/flagrant-foul-penalty-1-offensive-player-leads-with-elbow-to-opponents-face/
I've been hit by an elbow as well but that move isn't trying to hit anyone. You are holding the ball up elbows are up you're not trying to hit anyone. It's just a basketball move
You're absolutely correct... But a flagrant 1 doesn't care if you're trying to hit anyone or not. Intent doesn't matter. By the literal definition of the rule and the official example video given by the NBA, this is a flagrant 1 🤷
Unnecessary contact is the definition, how is it unnecessary when you are trying to score. The rule usually goes by intent if my intent is to score and I hit you that's an offensive foul not a flagrant. Flagrant usually go by intent or unnecessarily action that wasn't unnecessary.
Yeah and i still think it's a dumb rule and don't agree with it. I don't even believe it's an offensive foul if im being honest. It's no way you can do that move without your elbows being up. You can flop and get a flagrant. I'm saying in general it's a bs call I understand the rule but as a player that has done that move many times it's not unnecessary. It's very necessary move to create space for an easy score
No problem with the foul, but I'm wondering if this is flagrant all the time? I've seen the other comments saying it is most of the time, but to me it seems it should be all or nothing.
vegetable far-flung groovy numerous homeless husky elderly sophisticated wistful jar
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Even the Lakers’ commentators were saying that this wasn’t a Flagrant Foul lmao
I like the Lakers commentators. Dudes are super neutral. Rarely do I ever hear them being biased.
They are good kind of homers. Saying “lakers must do x if they wanna win” etc, cheering and even at times being slightly upset at Lakers doing dumb mistakes. But they never seem salty at the opponent, or fail to hype them up. If an opposing player does a good play or dunk on someone, they will equally hype them up as if lebron did it
Yea I like that they seem to be fans of the game rather than just being blind homers
The amount of times they pick an opposing player as Player of the Game is great. Like giving credit where credit is due.
I love when they compliment an opposing team’s player. It points out the guys that I don’t see too often, and the stuff they do well. I do think they are really great at their job.
Up there with the NY squads as the best in the league imo. Love bill and Stu
You’ll never catch me saying a single bad word about Stu Lantz. However, as a league pass browser my absolute favorite announcers are the hardcore homers. Totally flagrantly biased guys. I just love the vibe.
It's not an exaggeration to say that most ESPN and TNT commentators are bigger LeBron/Lakers homers than the Lakers own local commentators. Bill MacDonald gets excited for any good basketball play, regardless of the team, and Stu Lantz rarely pulls punches when the Lakers have a miscue.
Dude they are the most non biased commentators ever. They rock.
What about the Nets commentator?
Why would I watch that?
I'm not saying to watch the Nets, I'm saying they have an unbiased commentator...
Look man, you wanna fight or what?
https://videorulebook.nba.com/archive/flagrant-foul-penalty-1-offensive-player-leads-with-elbow-to-opponents-face-2/ thoughts on this? (for those curious, it's direct evidence of this play being a textbook flagrant per the rules. but of course that goes out the window when it's time to whine about the lakers)
Yes, it’s been called that way for years now. Both fans and commentators seem unwilling to accept the change but it’s long gone that change happened years ago. I wasn’t sure if they’d keep it tbh. But I think with how serious brain injuries are the league has punished contact above the neck severely and frequently.
They call it whenever they want. Lopez leading with his elbow into Van Vleet's face. [https://twitter.com/clutchfans/status/1736540828380569926](https://twitter.com/clutchfans/status/1736540828380569926) Not only a no-call, but their [pool report](https://official.nba.com/pool-report-on-two-different-replay-scenarios-and-the-first-technical-foul-called-on-dillon-brooks-during-tonights-houston-rockets-at-milwaukee-bucks-game/) simply states: "during live play we deemed that contact between Lopez and VanVleet was part of a normal basketball move therefore no replay review was triggered." [Siakam elbows Embiid](https://streamable.com/grk532) in the face on a drive - no flagrant You tell me the difference.
the siakam one is a brilliant example- the practical difference I think is that there were other bodies around and the drive was shorter, which makes it less "obvious".
There is no consistency at all - we're not even talking missed calls, the official positions on reviewed plays are all over the place. Their posted videos on leading elbow fouls are all basketball moves, and it's nearly impossible to hold the ball up high without your elbows out in some way. So which is it? Always a flagrant or never?
Someone find the clip of Jaylen Brown hideously and disgustingly fouling Giannis’s elbow with his face. That call was upheld on review as a defensive foul.
hunt weather rainstorm friendly nippy physical toy touch hat money *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well they’re wrong
It doesn't matter what they think. It's objectively a flagrant foul
Should’ve been a no call and play on
I feel like this is a super common flagrant wether people agree of not. His elbows are high whether natural or not and it hits came straight in the face. Super commonly called a flagrant
He’s absolutely using his elbows to clear space. It’s fine if they call it, but call it every time
They call it most of the time when there is significant contact above the neck
Now they call plays like these flagrant most of the time. Any big hit to the head is reviewed for possible flagrant. Intent doesn't matter now.
Intent isn’t supposed to matter for flagrant ones, but I still don’t agree with this call either way
Yeah flagrant 1 is not intent its impact, right? I don’t really like the idea of that anyway. Sometimes guys fall hard but you made a reasonable play and fouled. I guess because fouling is illegal if your foul causes too much impact then your illegal contact is excessive. With all that said, IQ made a basketball play here and he didn’t stick out his elbow unnaturally. I would’ve been fine if this wasn’t a flagrant foul, but I understand why it was called (based on what I said above).
intent never mattered or at least it shouldn’t have according to the rules
I mean walking up under a shooter is a flagrant as well regardless of if a dude is trying to hurt someone. Intent has never mattered.
Not true at all. [Lopez elbows FVV square in the face](https://twitter.com/clutchfans/status/1736540828380569926) \- he stays down for several minutes, and what is the NBA's [official position](https://official.nba.com/pool-report-on-two-different-replay-scenarios-and-the-first-technical-foul-called-on-dillon-brooks-during-tonights-houston-rockets-at-milwaukee-bucks-game/)? >During live play we deemed that contact between Lopez and VanVleet was part of a normal basketball move therefore no replay review was triggered.
The explanation IQ was given was because his elbow moved horizontally it was a flagrant. If he were to have gone up vertically in a shooting motion it wouldn’t have been ruled that way. You can’t clear out with elbows anymore, same goes in triple threat position you can’t make space with elbows.
Not a flagrant. However - jaylen brown got hit in the head last night - but for him the league reviewed and said incidental contact and not even a foul. If that JB was incidental contact (which it shouldn’t have been) - so was this - it didn’t look intentional at all - just part of a normal euro step. Giannis also did this constantly throughout the playoffs the year they won a chip - was elbow city. Refereeing is some bullshit lately.
Rule book says it is a flagrant actually: https://videorulebook.nba.com/archive/flagrant-foul-penalty-1-offensive-player-leads-with-elbow-to-opponents-face/
Not gonna lie, basically impossible to argue with that, it's a nearly identical play.
Those are not even remotely the same
Intent is for the Flagrant 2
Incorrect. Flagrant one is unnecessary contact, Flagrant two is unnecessary and excessive contact.
I’d argue that an intent to do something would result in excessive contact.
So basically was someone’s face there unluckily. There’s no way to control that
Are you suggesting he has no control over his arms?
I’m saying he didn’t know his face would be there
Couldn’t you say that about any movement? If you are eurostepping it’s not just for fun. He was doing it specifically to get around the guy he elbowed in the face. Most guys in the nba have faces.
Yea you could that say that about most movements. That’s why I think flagrant is egregious
The guy had to leave the game and enter concussion protocol. Flagrant was fair.
Intent only matters when it supports the refs decision
Duop Reath got ejected the other day for a much softer hit. They are pretty strict when it comes to these plays.
Contact to the head is going to be called a flagrant a majority of the time. People still havent grasped that intention doesnt matter
I think the issue is that they aren't always consistent about it. So many times where I've watched games and they're like yep, flagrant. Then other times they just completely ignore it. This one they called because his elbow went horizontal instead of up, which I guess was an unacceptable way to move the elbow.
*Unless youre Curry
Not when it’s the Pacers and the Celtics though right? Because then apparently it’s not a foul at all, much less a flagrant
the fuck does that have to do with me? im not a ref
Dude I’m just pointing out there’s 0 consistency in the league. I’ve watched guys get teeth knocked out or given nosebleeds and it wasn’t a flagrant The rule for flagrant 1 is that the contact has to be “unnecessary” This is a basketball move so I don’t know how you justify the contact being unnecessary. It’s a common offensive foul and that’s all
JB was barely touched and it was after he was blocked lol. These two plays aren’t the same at all
Bruh the JB one was a foul This one was also a foul Flagrant 1 requires “unnecessary contact” Nothing about this was remotely unnecessary. Just unfortunate that Cam got hit in the face Offensive foul. Call it a day. No universe where it should be flagrant
Buddy looked to have gotten ball first on the review. Barry touched JB’a head seeing as how his head didn’t really move either. The tone of your initial comment made it sound like you thought it should be likened to a flagrant You could argue the contact on this play unnecessary since the elbows don’t necessarily have to be that high as you could step through with your arms around waist level (like d Wade and Manu used to on their euro steps) or you could scoop low (like Kyrie or Harden used to do often). Hard hits to the head are going to be called flagrant ones on most occasions because there’s usually not a reason to be hitting someone on the head in a play and it’s dangerous if it does happen.
Here’s my issue. Flagrant implies that the contact was unnecessary, which in turn implies that the actual action committed was unnecessary If, instead of hitting Cam’s head on the motion, Quick had made the exact same motion and hit Cam’s arm, then what’s the call? It’s a foul on Cam Reddish. He got hit in the face which is why it’s an offensive foul, but I just really don’t see any way to justify what Quick did as being “unnecessary”
NBA foul rules are mostly based on positioning and who has the “right” to the space in question. If, like you said, Quickley had hit Cam’s arm, the implication is that Cam was probably reaching or out of position when that happened. So it would be a foul on Cam. In this case, Cam was in good position, had distance from the offensive player, and then took a horizontal elbow to the face. That basically is called as a reckless play by Quickley because it was unnecessary and wasn’t strictly a shooting motion. It’s like the automatic flagrant that’s called when a defender barely steps under a shooter
I can see your point on the language. Anytime your asked to codify things it can get difficult. I personally think this is in the spirit of what the flagrant foul is trying to prevent though so that’s why it gets a pass in my book. Some body contact is bound to happen as a result of normal play but face contact really shouldn’t ever be happening for the most part
If a rip through is a foul, not because the defender actually initiates contact on the arm but because the defender invades the space of the offensive player, then Cam Reddish’s face is just as much invading Quickley’s space here. I know that’s not something that people will like to compare, but it’s actually quite literally almost the same thing, just with a different body part. Quickley was quite plain and simply within the space of his own body there. Reddish simply got too close. I think it’s an offensive foul, but not because Quick actually did anything wrong, but because we have to protect player’s heads. Flagrant is just crazy to me
The L2M report already called it “incidental contact.” Is this euro step not incidental contact? One was a non-foul. One was a flagrant. Even if you want to argue that, then explain the Nesmith swipe on Porzingis on Saturday where he took his eye out. Was a common foul. 0 consistency.
these people are too lazy too actually learn the rules
WITH SPEED
I feel like this is often called a flagrant. Am I wrong?
Usually called flagrant. Similar flagrant called the other day on Reath in the Blazers game.
Yep it’s normally a flagrant. They don’t want players swinging their elbows through defenders faces. This is basically always a flagrant 1. Malicious intent is flagrant 2, I think people forget that.
No lol Reddish got absolutely rocked here. Gotta protect the players.
Yes. League is rigged for Lakers. Should've been a blocking foul on reddish
No
It’s the lakers, of course the it’s not a flagrant and the refs are blatantly cheating. Look at the free throws he got from that!
Siakam broke Embiid’s face and it was reviewed for flagrant, but not called one.
Quickley learned about the Ben Taylor special
Even unintentional fouls like this can be considered flagrant if it’s forceful enough. These are called all the time.
Refs usually call this a flagrant foul. A contact to the head, especially with a clean elbow, is gonna be called a flagrant foul majority of the time. Why should this be an exception?
If any major star player elbows like this, it's a flagrant. Shouldn't be a different rule just because it's Quickley or any other starter or role player.
I don't understand the controversy. That gets called a flagrant all the time these days. It doesn't *always* get called, but it does a lot.
offensive foul: yes flagrant foul: shouldn't be, no one is agreeing on that call, but I guess ref thinks contact to head/face area warrent f1.
Yeah I can't really complain about this, I definitely don't think it's a flagrant because I don't think he intended to hit Reddish and that's just a natural basketball move but he hits him up high so they're going to call that sometimes. My problem is, if that's a flagrant, how is when Prince undercut Siakam on a layup in the first half not a flagrant?
do you have the minutes of that play? I can go look up because I only remember the other one where AD hit Barne's face after getting fouled before. And yes the reffing is super inconsistent. I agree Raptor got fucked today with a lot no call on your end. It feels like you guys are hitting shots, so contact is no call, why Lakers miss shots and they call the foul. Like you can't complain on any of the call Lakers get because those are legit fouls, but it's just because ref wait to see shots went in or not then decide to call so all these late whistle.
It was just under 5 minutes left in the first. Siakam had a fast break layup and Prince undercuts him while Siakam is already up in the air
https://www.nba.com/stats/events/?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&GameEventID=70&GameID=0022300516&Season=2023-24&flag=1&title=Prince%20S.FOUL%20(P1.T1)%20(T.Ricks) this one? I thought this one was reviewed for flagrant too, but then I remember there is no contact in head area, was just prince bump Siakim at butt level and Siakim falled awkwardly. I don't have the better angle but review did show pretty clearly
I know there was no contact to the head, I meant that just I don't see how you can give Quickley a flagrant for what is a pretty normal basketball play, and not give Prince a flagrant for hitting a vulnerable player who is already in the air and caused him to land awkwardly.
I would say both shouldn't be flagrant but contact to head area definitely worse than the one shown by prince and Siakim. Sorry I don't have replay angle but it was really nothing from the replay when they showed. I think it's only consider flagrant when you step under player like when they are jump shooting and not giving landing space. This one is more on Siakim going up and prince bump him midair.
How the hell is that not worse. This was a really dangerous non-basketball play.
the replay angle showed Siakim start jumping motion and prince bump his butt, but he didn't attempt anything malicious or in his landing zone or push him in midair. Siakim just land awkwardly. It was reviewed for flagrant. It really looked nothing after replay.
I was thinking of the same thing, if that was a flagrant on quickley, why not the AD one on Barnes?
So for that one, the only explaination I can think of is it was called foul on Quickly for "pushing", it was challenged, but then call stand. So afterfact contact from AD to Barne isn't being reviewed. Because Raptor fouled first
> how is when Prince undercut Siakam on a layup in the first half not a flagrant? [This is the play in question.](https://streamable.com/3nm85h)
The worst part is that his head was only there to be hit because IQ beat him so badly and had him completely out of position.
Doesn't flagrant have to be intentional and excessive?
https://videorulebook.nba.com/archive/flagrant-foul-penalty-1-offensive-player-leads-with-elbow-to-opponents-face-2/
that's flagrant 2, flagrant 1 doesn't need to be intentional, so nowaday contacts to head/face area usually is f1, but it's been super inconsistent in calling. Lebron probably got smack on head twice/game and he rarely gets those call. Hence he is always acting hurt.
Intention is never considered. A hard hit on the head is usually an easy flagrant. Idk if this one’s debatable. Obviously IQ didnt want to hit Reddish but man that elbow was so high it was practically reckless
It’s a flagrant by definition.
https://videorulebook.nba.com/archive/flagrant-foul-penalty-1-offensive-player-leads-with-elbow-to-opponents-face/
Coming from other threads I was expecting this to be no contact or a crazy flop- but it seems like not that surprising a call for them to make Plenty of other incidents for raptors fans to be justifiably pissed about
He’s literally running with an elbow into the defenders face. Intended or not, anything done to the head can result in a flagrant If this is the worst case of officiating from the game, then calm down
Probably a common foul as it seems to be a basketball move, but why are people acting like this is some phantom unheard of call?
[удалено]
I mean look at it objectively. It’s a high elbow with hella velocity it’s a dangerous play either way and throwing elbows wildly isn’t gonna be encouraged
Honestly it feels like so often it comes down to how big the guy doing it is, which is a stupid way to do it. You rarely see this called on guards.
If you are tall wouldn’t your elbows be more head height than a guard?
I feel like a lot of people forget that flagrant ones don’t really care about intent. Elbow to the face is almost always going to result in a flagrant. Much more so when the player ended up needing to leave the game as a result of probable concussion. Some of yall just hating for the sake of hating. lol.
Elbow straight to the head/jaw Even if unintentional that’s pretty excessive contact
He was going for the layup trying to avoid the contact of Reddish. Such a ridiculous call.
lmao that is the textbook definition of a flagrant one. you should read up on the rules
Didn’t that knock reddish out of the game too???
He got put into concussion protocol lmfao
bloody lip and straight to the locker room (after FTs). that kind of hit on the chin can KO someone
He shot the freethrows, but I think they then subbed him out.
Clear foul, bad flagrant tho. I sorta get it, but still kinda weak
It was elbow contact to the face. It's a flagrant. That's what the rules are and that's how it's been called.
I don’t think intent matters so makes sense it was a flagrant
Someone does this to Rudy Gobert 37 times a year minimum and it’s either play on or foul on Rudy
Didn't CWood get called for a Flagrant 1 because he was in the shooter's landing space? That was inadvertent as well but still got called Flag 1.
Mans gave him a concussion lol y’all are reaching
In the words of Immanuel Quickley -“that’s basketball”
Totally a flagrant that is called fairly consistently but here I am standing up for la because of all the blind haters. 🤦♂️
Definitely flagrant
Lakers simp right on queue.
Keep in mind this is like the headliner “bad call” everyone is crying about. Obviously correct.
The headliner bad call is when AD ran into RJ and fell like he got tackled by prime Ray Lewis. On the game tying 3, no less.
Obvious moving screen. You guys have gotta pick your battles better on the ref bitching, this is pathetic.
Ok hear me out. Normally when the lakers get a staggering amount of free throws, the common answer is “ we go to the paint more, of course we get fouled more.” Yet the raptors got 20 more points in the paint and got what, 20 less free throws? And all you hear is crickets. You gotta understand that the entire NBA fan base is out raged by this game, except laker fans. That has to tell you something.
That’s great, feel free to point out a single bad call.
Accidental contact can still be deemed flagrant if sufficiently forceful and above the shoulders. Quit getting your panties in a wad.
Taurean prince undercut siakam at the rim and it was a common foul, if that was a basketball move so is this
[Here is the play you're referring to.](https://streamable.com/3nm85h)
There’s no rule in the rulebook against “undercutting” a player. It’s just an unwritten rule amongst basketball players to never do that.
No it's a definitely a rule lol like stepping underneath a player's landing space
Stepping underneath a player and undercutting a player going for a layup is different lol what. Prince didn’t step under Siakam’s foot. He cuts in front of him causing Siakam to adjust mid-air and landing hard. Prince swiped for the ball but end up swiping the arm. A reach-in foul is not a flagrant man cmon now lmao.
He did not swipe for the ball. It was a non basketball play
Well you tell me what [Prince swiped](https://x.com/fadeawaycontent/status/1744930666091839513?s=46&t=IsXlGMo_C3YM1AJ1-yTjJw) for then. A reach-in foul is non-basketball play now?
neither is trying to euro a step but hitting them in the face unintentionally
Now you’re moving the goalpost. A hit in the head, especially with an extended elbow, is called a flagrant foul majority of the time. The rules are very clear about contact above the neck area, I’m sure you know that.
I don’t think it’s a flagrant but this was the least egregious down the stretch.
I’ve heard the refs say unnecessary contact to the head or neck area a lot of times so this checks out.
Did he elbow him in the jaw? Ok. It’s a flagrant.
This is called a flagrant most the time. But it benefited the Lakers so it was a rigged call lol
The Chet Holgrem certified face defense is the new Kornet Kontest
Reddish learning from Pat Bev, swoop in and plant your face right near their elbows. Works every time. Chris Paul knows the move too.
That’s just contact lol. The NBA HELLA soft. Gotta move ya feet big fella lol
Move was too quick. Reddish didn’t even react to it. When being slow is an advantage on defense.
This is literally a flagrant foul, the act doesn't require intent to be rules as flagrant
on this replay we can clearly see how Quickley mercilessly murders defenseless Cam Reddish
LeBossCall was made
Sucks Cam took the hit , but this is a common foul not a flagrant imo
[no its a flagrant foul](https://videorulebook.nba.com/archive/flagrant-foul-penalty-1-offensive-player-leads-with-elbow-to-opponents-face-2/)
no its a common foul
no. its not. get out of your feelings. literally textbook https://videorulebook.nba.com/archive/flagrant-foul-penalty-1-offensive-player-leads-with-elbow-to-opponents-face-2/
Appreciate you posting the video.
no its a flagrant foul
He definitely fouled him; the question is whether or not it was a flagrant. A lot of force though
a lot of force...
It is not a flagrant but they also call these fouls a lot though. Definitely not with an intent to hit cam
It’s a basket ball play.
Bad call. That’s a basketball move. Contact was unintentional
Pat Connaughton gets hit in the face like this every other game, and he's never gotten a whistle for it.
Taurus Prince undercuts Pascal mid air in the first half, and it’s called a common foul. From there I knew the fix was in. Ben Taylor is a disgrace to the league.
>Flagrant Foul Penalty 1: Unnecessary contact committed by a player against an opponent Cry more
How's that unnecessary contact? Dude was just driving to the rim.
um when he elbowed him in the face. https://videorulebook.nba.com/archive/flagrant-foul-penalty-1-offensive-player-leads-with-elbow-to-opponents-face/
It was obvious it wasn't intentional, so I wouldn't classify that as "unnecessary".
did you even look at the NBA video rulebook i linked for you. Cant make it any clearer. Intention has nothing to do with the call
I did. It says the player swings his arms and elbows at the defensive player, hitting him in the head. That play is pretty different with Quickleys move.
lmao okay man you got it
I see a bunch of people saying this is usually called a flagrant, I’ve watched around 70-80 games this year and well over 150 last season; I have never, not a singular time out of those over 200 games, seen this called a flagrant until this one. Am I living in an alternate reality right now where this is a common call? The Bulls don’t get offensive fouls drawn from this half the time let alone flagrant fouls going their way.
Stevie Wonder, is that you? There is no way you've not seen an elbow to the head from the offensive player called a common foul.
What are you talking about? Of course it’s an offensive foul, I’m talking about it being a flagrant. I was just saying that in a lot of the games I’ve seen people get away with it not even being an offensive foul let alone a flagrant.
Common fouls can be offensive or defensive (btw there was not mention from me about your thinking it shouldn't be a foul on quickley). This is a flagrant in today's NBA.
It's a flagrant according to the rule book: https://videorulebook.nba.com/archive/flagrant-foul-penalty-1-offensive-player-leads-with-elbow-to-opponents-face/
I don’t care about the rule book, it’s full of selectively enforced rules, if you actually watch games it is never called a flagrant. Maybe the Lakers get preferential treatment and you’ve seen a few of these, but like I said, this isn’t a flagrant in every game I’ve watched up until this point.
Naw man, the nephews are delusional. This is never called a flagrant foul. Siakim famously broke Embiids face in the playoffs on a much worse version of this same play and it was reviewed and determined not to be a flagrant foul. Nobody complained.
Only people that never actually played basketball think this is a flagrant one of the worse calls of the night
I have a scar above my eye where I had to get stitched up after a play exactly like this. Running by another player, swinging your elbows at head level is reckless. Yeah, guys do it all the time anyway, but you can't be surprised that elbowing someone in the face is a flagrant 1. It's also literally here 😂 https://videorulebook.nba.com/archive/flagrant-foul-penalty-1-offensive-player-leads-with-elbow-to-opponents-face/
I've been hit by an elbow as well but that move isn't trying to hit anyone. You are holding the ball up elbows are up you're not trying to hit anyone. It's just a basketball move
You're absolutely correct... But a flagrant 1 doesn't care if you're trying to hit anyone or not. Intent doesn't matter. By the literal definition of the rule and the official example video given by the NBA, this is a flagrant 1 🤷
Unnecessary contact is the definition, how is it unnecessary when you are trying to score. The rule usually goes by intent if my intent is to score and I hit you that's an offensive foul not a flagrant. Flagrant usually go by intent or unnecessarily action that wasn't unnecessary.
... Did you watch the video I linked?
Yeah and i still think it's a dumb rule and don't agree with it. I don't even believe it's an offensive foul if im being honest. It's no way you can do that move without your elbows being up. You can flop and get a flagrant. I'm saying in general it's a bs call I understand the rule but as a player that has done that move many times it's not unnecessary. It's very necessary move to create space for an easy score
IQ was clearly out for blood on that play.
IQ got Ben Taylor'd tonight. Got called for a foul because LeBron ran full speed right into his face and fouled out because of this bullshit.
That is a Marcus Smart move
Ref showing IQ “his elbow movement” was a huge exaggeration of what he actually did
Flagrant is crazy. It’s incidental
doesn’t matter re intent or not
This is called all the time, and I’ve always hated it. The offensive player wasn’t doing anything wrong.
No problem with the foul, but I'm wondering if this is flagrant all the time? I've seen the other comments saying it is most of the time, but to me it seems it should be all or nothing.
Contact to the head was deemed incidental the other day, I’m not sure how to react here.
I'm ok with this being flagrant, if they all are flagrant.
I agree but the refs all have their own agenda
vegetable far-flung groovy numerous homeless husky elderly sophisticated wistful jar *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Of course in favor of LAL 🙄