Should Rondo's foul on Miller have been flagrant?

[jrcp3]

How is that not a Flagrant Foul regardless he went for the HEAD of Brad Miller, there was NO play for ball ......

It's doesn't make sense, Flagrant Foul is a Flagrant Foul anytime ......

NBA couldn't let Boston lose in the first round common now ..... Bull **** man!

[1~Gibson~1]

How is that not a Flagrant Foul regardless he went for the HEAD of Brad Miller, there was NO play for ball ......

It's doesn't make sense, Flagrant Foul is a Flagrant Foul anytime ......

NBA couldn't let Boston lose in the first round common now ..... Bull **** man!

pun intended?

[ronron15]

homecourt advantage. i think its bull

[jason816]

wasn't there blood all over Brad Miller....?

it should have been a flagrant 1...

[Hotshoot]

yeah thats why they fouled out Ray, refs were doing everything they can to win it for the Bulls this series.

[TheGreatDeraj]

By the rulebook it is a technical. I'm glad it wasn't called though.

[OneMoreSucka]

wasn't there blood all over Brad Miller....?

it should have been a flagrant 1...

So because there's blood means it's intentional? Stupidest **** I've ever heard.

[bagelred]

I can't believe it. Didn't anybody see the brass knuckles Rondo had on his fingers? Ridiculous.....

[Showtime]

So because there's blood means it's intentional? Stupidest **** I've ever heard.

No, I think his point was the "excessive" contact excuse. Either way, Rondo had no chance at getting to his arm, and was just swiping at his face to stop him. That should have been a flagrant 1.

[bisk]

So because there's blood means it's intentional? Stupidest **** I've ever heard.

Alright, that blood argument by that guy doesn't make much sense.
But come on dude, it was clearly more than a normal personal foul.
He slapped the dude across the face, with absolutely no intend for the ball.
TNT replay clearly showed it, the ball was a couple feet in front of Miller and Rajon just comes from the right and hit's his forearm against his face.

[04mzwach]

It didn't affect the shot and there was a little over 3 seconds left. I guess it might of been a flagrant, though Rondo seemed like he wasn't even looking at Miller when he got him in the face. I guess it could be a flagrant, but the outcome wouldn't of changed. Maybe another OT? Snooze. Paul was going to will his team to a win either way.

[wang4three]

I thought at most it was going to be a technical, kinda surprised they didn't call it.

[Kobe24]

I thought at most it was going to be a technical, kinda surprised they didn't call it.

Have they ever called a technical on a foul? It's either Flagrant or regular foul. Smarten up.

[burnsy87]

It didn't affect the shot and there was a little over 3 seconds left. I guess it might of been a flagrant, though Rondo seemed like he wasn't even looking at Miller when he got him in the face. I guess it could be a flagrant, but the outcome wouldn't of changed. Maybe another OT? Snooze. Paul was going to will his team to a win either way.

I bet you were saying the same thing when the bulls were down by 3 in the first OT Sunday... How can you just say "they were going to win". The bulls played flat last time and came out in the 2nd OT firing.

[jason816]

No, I think his point was the "excessive" contact excuse. Either way, Rondo had no chance at getting to his arm, and was just swiping at his face to stop him. That should have been a flagrant 1.

thank you for the understanding, that's exactly my point.