Your pathological obsession with shitting on all thinks Laker to build up LeBron is just so bizarre.
But again, you quit on this team 2 months ago so I'm not sure why anyone still puts any stock in anything you have to say. You truly have no idea what you're watching or you just can't admit what it is you see.
This is a talented, deep Lakers squad that has as good a chance as anyone to win the conference. And yes, LeBron will be a HUGE part of that. As will Davis. But never forget that LeBron was ready to shut it down for the year and it was Davis, D-Lo, Reaves and the rest of those shitty teammates you've done nothing that dump on who convinced him to actually put his sneakers on.
No amount of deflection from you will ever change that. If the Lakers manage to make a run out of this, it'll be the 2nd time that LeBron was ready to quit on a season only to see his teammates keep the season alive for them. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
Irrelevant. If you don’t give the shooter a place to land, it’s supposed to be called a flagrant foul in the NBA these days and has been called as such for a couple of years now. The Lakers were incredibly lucky to even get to overtime after that silly play.
I reiterate - look at the picture. There's plenty of room to land.
You're seeing what you want to see - again. Davis planted that foot and got his entire body turned before making contact Conley. And you're telling me there was no room for him to land? Nonsense.
“This is an example of a Flagrant Foul, Penalty 1. The defensive player, Julius Randle, challenges the jump shot, and he extends his right foot into the landing area of the shooter, James Harden, causing him to fall to the floor. Defenders must give airborne shooters the opportunity to land safely. Whether intentional or not, this is a dangerous play, and there is potential for injury. A Flagrant Foul, Penalty 1 is defined as contact that is unnecessary. The penalty for a Flagrant 1 is two free throws for the offended player, and his team would also retain possession of the ball. Note also that any called foul that could potentially be ruled flagrant, will be reviewed via Instant Replay, to determine if it is a Flagrant 1, a Flagrant 2, a Technical Foul, or a common foul.”
Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
You don’t watch anywhere near enough NBA if you aren’t aware that exact play has repeatedly been called a flagrant foul in recent years.
Yeah - you've just been bang-on in your analysis thus far. [Reply]
“This is an example of a Flagrant Foul, Penalty 1. The defensive player, Julius Randle, challenges the jump shot, and he extends his right foot into the landing area of the shooter, James Harden, causing him to fall to the floor. Defenders must give airborne shooters the opportunity to land safely. Whether intentional or not, this is a dangerous play, and there is potential for injury. A Flagrant Foul, Penalty 1 is defined as contact that is unnecessary. The penalty for a Flagrant 1 is two free throws for the offended player, and his team would also retain possession of the ball. Note also that any called foul that could potentially be ruled flagrant, will be reviewed via Instant Replay, to determine if it is a Flagrant 1, a Flagrant 2, a Technical Foul, or a common foul.”
Do some reading and watch this play.
How bout you watch the play in question?
Randle's foot is under the shooter; Harden comes straight down on his foot. Now look where Davis's is. It's a full foot away from Conley's landing point.
It's not even a close question. Even money says you simply never saw the angle I've given you and now you're just doubling down on stupid.
It wasn't a foul. It damn sure wasn't a flagrant. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I reiterate - look at the picture. There's plenty of room to land.
You're seeing what you want to see - again. Davis planted that foot and got his entire body turned before making contact Conley. And you're telling me there was no room for him to land? Nonsense.
Just as FOS as ever...
Irrelevant. Conley landed on AD’s foot which came up under him. This exact play was literally made a flagrant foul a few years ago (in the aftermath of Zaza taking Kawhi out for 2 years) and has been consistently called as such (except oddly when the Lakers’ playoff hopes were on the line). [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
How bout you watch the play in question?
Randle's foot is under the shooter; Harden comes straight down on his foot. Now look where Davis's is. It's a full foot away from Conley's landing point.
It's not even a close question. Even money says you simply never saw the angle I've given you and now you're just doubling down on stupid.
It wasn't a foul. It damn sure wasn't a flagrant.
What the hell difference does it make where AD is when Conley shoots the ball? :-)
It matters where his foot is when Conley comes down. Read the rule. [Reply]
Davis came to a stop well before the 3-point line. That's absolutely giving the shooter 'an opportunity to land safely'
Conley jumped forward on a stand-up 3-point attempt with the express intention of drawing contact and a cheap foul. That was contact created by Conley and a bullshit foul to have called in that situation. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
What the hell difference does it make where AD is when Conley shoots the ball? :-)
It matters where his foot is when Conley comes down. Read the rule.
Because where you are when the shot comes out is instrumental to the 'opportunity to land safely'.
When Conley is unnecessarily propelling himself forward to draw contact, it's on the shooter. Davis provided him a landing zone and Conley elected not to utilize it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut: Because where you are when the shot comes out is instrumental to the 'opportunity to land safely'.
When Conley is unnecessarily propelling himself forward to draw contact, it's on the shooter. Davis provided him a landing zone and Conley elected not to utilize it.
No, that is not how the rule reads and it is certainly not how it has been enforced. Conley knowing exactly what he was doing doesn’t change the fact that AD came under his landing area on this play:
I could pull so many more examples of plays identical to this being called flagrant over the past couple of years. Do I agree with what the NBA has done with this call? No, because it gives a further avenue for smart players like Conley to foul seek. But they’ve done it in an attempt to prevent injuries. [Reply]
Flagrant fouls for blocking the landing area are an awful rule
To be clear, I'm ok with reviewing these plays to check if there was any ridiculously unnecessary or dirty plays, but the standard of defining any play where you block the shooter's landing as a flagrant is bad. It sounds reasonable to minimize injury risk, but realistically, we are in an era with the deepest range, fastest releases, and most 3s ever, so there are bound to be more aggressive closeouts. Plus more and more players are trying to draw these 3 point fouls, which makes these closeout flagrants more likely.
Anecdotally, there was a recent Bulls game, which we were likely to lose but still hanging on. Pretty sure it was the Jazz game, where we were within 2 points sometime near halfway in the game.
Then their player, pretty sure it was Mitchell, gets a clean 3 off with no foul on the shot, makes it, draws a foul on the landing (it was the correct call for sure), and it gets called a Flagrant 1 (also correct based on rules). So he now gets the 3, then gets 2 FTs to make 1 (which is literally almost 100% for most free throw shooters), and then gets possession, where they score another bucket. So the Bulls give up 6 points on essentially one possession for an aggressive closeout. This part isn't related to the rule, but we never closed the gap from then on and got blown out.
There's really very little that I think should justify the potential for up to 7 points on one possession (2 separate shots but the other team never gets the ball), and being in the landing area without malicious intent definitely should not be in my opinion.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm not against the punishment/discipline aspect of reckless closeouts. I just don't think any in-game situation should result in up to 7 points by one team without the other team getting possession, outside of things that are 100% clear (one side punching someone, clearly pushing a player midair, etc). One call like this off of a non-malicious closeout can absolutely swing an entire game in the playoffs
A Reddit thread bitching about fouls exactly like this being called a flagrant. This is where the NBA is at this point. [Reply]
Originally Posted by :
These “landing space” flagrant fouls on jump shots are getting out of hand, and should be changed next year
During that flagrant by Bogdanovic, Middleton shot from behind the arc, jumped forward and kicked his feet out and landed on Bogdanovic’s foot INSIDE the arc. Bogey’s toe barely reached the line. Whenever these calls are reviewed I never hear the broadcast mention where the shooter jumped from vs where he landed.
I understand that Middleton’s foot motion could be a natural extension of his shooting motion (I think he exaggerated it here but whatever). However, what is Bogdanovic possibly supposed to do in this scenario if he actually wants to challenge the shot? I would understand a common foul, but calling a flagrant for someone contesting a shot and landing well short of where Middleton took off from is crazy to me. It’s clear that the league knows the foul situation on jump shooters in general is a mess and that’s why they’ve already announced those proposed rule changes, and this should be looked at as well.
The Zaza play on Kawhi that sparked this rule was far different than some of these calls. Zaza took an extra step at the end of his closeout and Kawhi landed on his foot BEHIND where he elevated for the shot. I understand creating a rule for situations like that but is has spiraled out of control to get to where we are today.
You're taking examples of instances where it was called (instances where people were clearly pissed off about it, no less) and presuming that's the way its SUPPOSED to be called. That it's called that way every time on the hundreds of contested jumpers taken every night where there's contact after the shot.
It's just not so. You see contact over and over and over again on jump shots in the NB as guys close out. Sometimes it's called, more frequently it isn't. So to sit there and say that it's just some obvious foul that should've been a flagrant is again an example of you looking to shit on anything not Lebron.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
This is textbook selection bias.
You're taking examples of instances where it was called (instances where people were clearly pissed off about it, no less) and presuming that's the way its SUPPOSED to be called. That it's called that way every time on the hundreds of contested jumpers taken every night where there's contact after the shot.
It's just not so. You see contact over and over and over again on jump shots in the NB as guys close out. Sometimes it's called, more frequently it isn't. So to sit there and say that it's just some obvious foul that should've been a flagrant is again an example of you looking to shit on anything not Lebron.
It was a weak call.
I'm not presuming anything. As a NBA season ticket holder and someone who watches hundreds of these games every year, it's the way it is called and has been for several years now. Has nothing to do with it having to do with LeBron or being anti-Lakers or whatever other bullshit you're talking about in that regard.
You can debate all you want about whether that should be a foul (and I would agree, I don't think it should be, particularly in situations where the shooter has clearly jumped forward like Conley did the NBA needs to start walking that back), but the fact that it is a foul in today's NBA isn't up for debate. [Reply]
