Originally Posted by WhiteChocolateJr
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.
So the fact it was called a flagrant is the bottom line and you're right.......whatever .......So Derek Fisher could catch a ball turn around shoot a normal motion shot and release it in or under .4 seconds? Impossible shot but on the floor it counted. Sorry just because the refs say the shot counted or the foul was flagrant means little to me just because that was the ref's call on the floor. What about Brent Barry being fouled on a 3 point shot in 08' by Fisher and the NBA admitted a foul should have been called????? Sometimes the refs get it wrong. They were wrong.