[wager1]

I hate him. all he does is complain and complain, just shut the hell up and try calling a basketball game for once!

[brainfreeze0]

Because he was stressing how much of a bs call that technical was? Like he asked, "If he had landed on his feet would you still think that was a flagrant?" His partner said nothing who was saying it was a flagrant before. It was a bs call, and Van Gundy was right in his assessment and questioning of it.

[wager1]

Because he was stressing how much of a bs call that technical was? Like he asked, "If he had landed on his feet would you still think that was a flagrant?" His partner said nothing who was saying it was a flagrant before. It was a bs call, and Van Gundy was right in his assessment and questioning of it.

Im not questioning whether he was right in that situation. he prob was. Im assuming you dont watch alot of ESPN because its not just that one time. That is his "Schtick", or however you spell that. im just sayin thats all he does is go off about things , and goes on and on. i guarantee you the guys he works with have to hate him. It gets old real quick listening to his crap

[brainfreeze0]

I dont watch ESPN. I like his commentating though because I like talkative commentators that are lively.

[merikson]

Brand didn't go for the ball. Van Gundy's excuse was he isn't athletic enough, lol. Flagrant 1 is the right call. Rules are rules.

[jimmy007oc]

Thats a good question that Van Gundy asked his partner. and this was not a flagrant foul

[brainfreeze0]

Brand didn't go for the ball. Van Gundy's excuse was he isn't athletic enough, lol. Flagrant 1 is the right call. Rules are rules.

Ok so everytime an offensive player is going up and the defense grabs their arm not even going for the ball to prevent a dunk its a flagrant? Great rationale

[merikson]

Ok so everytime an offensive player is going up and the defense grabs their arm not even going for the ball to prevent a dunk its a flagrant? Great rationale

"unnecessary".....play defense and go for the ball....pretty simple.

[PS3]

Ok so everytime an offensive player is going up and the defense grabs their arm not even going for the ball to prevent a dunk its a flagrant? Great rationale

Uhmm. Yeah.

[brainfreeze0]

"unnecessary".....play defense and go for the ball....pretty simple.

Unnecessary would have been like the clothes line tackles that normally get f;agrants. That play he went up to hold him from making the shot. Completely different. True flagrants would be a flagrant whether he landed on his feet or went to the ground or even went up at all. Had he landed on his feet that would never have been a flagrant..... pretty simple

[brainfreeze0]

Uhmm. Yeah.

Then you don't know what a flagrant is. Under this rationale every clear path foul would also be a flagrant foul. Not very logical

[merikson]

Unnecessary would have been like the clothes line tackles that normally get technicals. That play he went up to hold him from making the shot. Completely different. True technicals would be a technical whether he landed on his feet or went to the ground or even went up at all. Had he landed on his feet that would never have been a technical..... pretty simple

lol, you're talking about techs now? A flagrant was called, not a tech. A "close line" would have gotten him ejected with a flagrant 2. The foul he committed got him a flagrant 1. It was the correct call....using the NBA rules book. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[brainfreeze0]

lol, you're talking about techs now? A flagrant was called, not a tech. A "close line" would have gotten him ejected with a flagrant 2. The foul he committed got him a flagrant 1. It was the correct call....using the NBA rules book. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I think its pretty obvious I meant to say flagrant as technicals arent even the subject here. As for your thoughts on this, this is probably the pussy NBA ticky tack call league where a tap gets a foul call. If you consider that a flagrant you probably played flag football. That same type of flagrant happens so often in NBA games flagrant fouls would be happening way to often to justify even calling that a flagrant, which is why that type of call is more often than not a regular foul.
Do you have the NBA rule book in front of you? Can you recite the rule verbatim for us?

[brainfreeze0]

Flagrant Foul 1, in which contact is considered unnecessary

Well considering he was going up to stop him from making the shot and didn't send him to the ground intentionally it was an unintentional event him falling backwards after. Why it would not have been called had he landed on his feet.

Kevin Martin just grabbed Collison across the chest going up for a dunk to stop him from making the shot, not even going for the ball. Guess that should be a flagrant as well.

[merikson]

Flagrant Foul 1, in which contact is considered unnecessary

Well considering he was going up to stop him from making the shot and didn't send him to the ground intentionally it was an unintentional event him falling backwards after. Why it would not have been called had he landed on his feet.

He didn't land on his feet....so I guess we'll never know. I do know that is was called a flagrant 1 on the court. It was clearly "unnecessary"....go for the ball and the call would have just been a personal. It is a very simple concept and rule, I don't understand why you aren't grasping it.

[NYCWinner]

Van Gundy can be annoying but he makes some good points. The TNT basketball commentators are better than ESPN guys across the board.

[brainfreeze0]

For the simple reason it happens many times in many games and only gets called a foul in those. Stopping shots by stopping the person as opposed to the ball is a regular part of professional basketball. He didn't do anythng different than many other players do many times a game in many games. Hence Van Gundy's calling it a joke, hence his partners silence when he put forth the question. There would be hundreds of flagrants a season under that logic. As stated K. Martin just did it to Collison. No flagrant, only a foul. Didn't even attempt for the ball, just his chest. I don't understand why you aren't grasping that.

[merikson]

He didn't go for the ball. If he went for the ball, it wouldn't have been "unnecessary" and he wouldn't have received the flagrant. It's plain and simple.

[brainfreeze0]

He didn't go for the ball. If he went for the ball, it wouldn't have been "unnecessary" and he wouldn't have received the flagrant. It's plain and simple.

Then why didn't they give Kevin Martin a flagrant when he just went for Nick Collisons body when he was going up for a dunk trying to hold him down so he wouldn't make it, never even attempting for the ball to stop the dunk? That was "unnecessary" by your definition. If it's plain and simple why no flagrant there?

[TwoWays]

You're racist

[merikson]

Then why didn't they give Kevin Martin a flagrant when he just went for Nick Collisons body when he was going up for a dunk trying to hold him down so he wouldn't make it, never even attempting for the ball to stop the dunk? That was "unnecessary" by your definition. If it's plain and simple why no flagrant there?

I'm no longer watching the game....so I can't say for sure. I'm assuming it wasn't a dramatic as you're making it out to be or else they would have called it the same.

[brainfreeze0]

I'm no longer watching the game....so I can't say for sure. I'm assuming it wasn't a dramatic as you're making it out to be or else they would have called it the same.

So now you're saying they need to involve drama for it to be a flagrant? A second ago it just involved them not going for the ball and only for the body. Please make up your mind. Collison was running and Martin couldn't stop him so he grabbed his body to keep him from making the shot. The very same thing you just called a flagrant a minute ago.

He didn't go for the ball. If he went for the ball, it wouldn't have been "unnecessary" and he wouldn't have received the flagrant. It's plain and simple.

[merikson]

So now you're saying they need to involve drama for it to be a flagrant? A second ago it just involved them not going for the ball and only for the body. Please make up your mind. Collison was running and Martin couldn't stop him so he grabbed his body to keep him from making the shot. The very same thing you just called a flagrant a minute ago.

I'm saying you're DRAMATIC!

[brainfreeze0]

I'm saying you're DRAMATIC!

I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about as you have just proven with your own words earlier.

[merikson]

I'm saying you don't know what you're talking about as you have just proven with your own words earlier.

Lol, you are calling flagrant fouls, technical fouls and you are saying teammates are fouling each other (Kevin Martin and Nick Collison).....and I don't know what I'm talking about. You're f'n hilarious!

[Reign Man]

Van Gundy gets annoying sometimes but no one is worse than Reggie Miller

[brainfreeze0]

Lol, you are calling flagrant fouls, technical fouls and you are saying teammates are fouling each other (Kevin Martin and Nick Collison).....and I don't know what I'm talking about. You're f'n hilarious!

I type fast I meant Darren. Yet don't change the subject. Answer the question. Why was it not a flagrant on Martin who didn't go for the ball and went for his body to stop the shot and just got a foul? You stated that is a flagrant. So answer the question. You don't have to have seen the play. It happened just as I stated. Just like I stated it happens all the time. Just like Van Gundy stated that was not a flagrant foul.

He didn't go for the ball. If he went for the ball, it wouldn't have been "unnecessary" and he wouldn't have received the flagrant.

[PS3]

Dude you have to understand that there are a lot of inconsistencies with these types of calls. It is really up to the zebras out there.

[merikson]

I type fast I meant Darren. Yet don't change the subject. Answer the question. Why was it not a flagrant on Martin who didn't go for the ball and went for his body to stop the shot and just got a foul? You stated that is a flagrant. So answer the question. You don't have to have seen the play. It happened just as I stated. Just like I stated it happens all the time. Just like Van Gundy stated that was not a flagrant foul.

I didn't see the play foul on Martin....maybe they missed the call. I don't care really. All I know is that Brand deservedly received a flagrant 1 for his foul on Ibaka.

[brainfreeze0]

Dude you have to understand that there are a lot of inconsistencies with these types of calls. It is really up to the zebras out there.

Exactly. I do understand that. I'm just trying to get this other guy to get it through his head it's not black and white like he's stating. It was a bs call that goes one way on one guy and nothing on the other side. Same ref also was looking straight at Kevin Martins feet as he traveled shown in slow motion and called nothing.

[brainfreeze0]

I didn't see the play foul on Martin....maybe they missed the call. I don't care really. All I know is that Brand deservedly received a flagrant 1 for his foul on Ibaka.

They called thefoul on Martin so no they didn't miss it. Collison was on a fast break by himself and Martin was the only one there in clear view. The Brand call is your opinion. Others call it what it was, BS. However, by your definition it was a flagrant on Martin so... I'd consider Van Gundy more an authority on the subject of NBA rules and calls than you or I or anyone else around here though.

[merikson]

Lol, someone is clearly on the Mavs tonight.

[brainfreeze0]

I'm on the Mavs but that doesn't matter. When the same situations have happened in the past I've called it for what it was and stated I'm glad we got away with it.