Originally Posted by exit7
So then any intentional foul should be considered Flagrant, maybe they need to call flagrant when a team is practicing hack-a-shaq? Manu grabbed his arm to prevent him making the shot, it was necessary so he wouldn't get a three point play. You're not going to convince me that was a flagrant foul, so lets agree to disagree.
The dizzy part was just an extra 2 cents, that was pure BS on Allen's part, I understand it had nothing to do with the call, I was just saying it was ridiculous.
exit7, I think you're missing the operative language in the regulatory section. The "flagrant/regular" distinction seems to turn on whether a given player was particularly susceptible to injury or otherwise vulnerable
due to his position on or above the court. In other words: Refs look at whether a fouled player was standing still, jogging, running full-speed at the rim, or jumping in making the call. How a player landed or ended up, unfortunately, seems to enter the calculus as well for the refs to retroactively determine vulnerability. If a player is rolling around, apparently writhing in pain and seemingly injured, then he must have been vulnerable when he was fouled. Q.E.D.
In your example, if a player committed an intentional "Hack-a-Player" foul while the fouled Player was airborne, then it could
correctly be whistled a flagrant. Will it necessarily be whistled as such? Who knows. Ref discretion still is an annoyingly inconsistent factor in implementing the rules and regs.
Whether you now argue that it ought not have been a flagrant is moot: It was
a called flagrant. Flagrant foul carry additional penalties (including suspensions). Manu has those points now, unless the league rescinds and changes the call after the fact.