PDA

View Full Version : The flagrant on Artest did not cost the Pacers 4 points



Unclebuck
06-02-2004, 08:59 AM
Edit: I have changed the title of this thread, becaue yes it was a 4 point play, or at least a 4 point possession. But the foul itself only costs the pacers two points

Pistons had the ball to begin with. So the only penalty were the two free throws. Pistons could have scored just as easily prior to the flagrant as they did after the flagrant.

In fact Rip got a technical because of it, so really it should have only cost the pacers one net point. Of course the camera did not pick up on what Rip did.

TheSauceMaster
06-02-2004, 09:03 AM
I have seen several replays on the Mike and Mike Show on ESPN and I think Rip Baited Ron with several shall we say cheap shots , that really alot of people didn't see I am sure. Not tryiing to excuse what ron did as he shoulda know better than to lose his composure.

Aw Heck
06-02-2004, 09:04 AM
Two free throws plus a possession= four point play. Had Ron just given him a regular foul, it may have just been a two point play and the Pacers could've gone back on offense and tied it up. However that wasn't the case and the Pistons broke the tie and went ahead by four.

Ron's flagrant led to four Piston points without a Pacers' chance at offense. That is why it is a four point play. It put the Pistons over the hump in order to win the game.

If Ron hadn't received the flagrant, who knows it could've remained dead even the rest of the way and gone into overtime.

TheSauceMaster
06-02-2004, 09:11 AM
Pacers lost the Game way before Ron got the Flagrant , some people are too blind or choose not too see this , if we would have played ball like we did in the first quarter and not got lazy we would hve never had to worry about the pistons being so close ..it would have been a blowout.

Unclebuck
06-02-2004, 09:12 AM
Two free throws plus a possession= four point play. Had Ron just given him a regular foul, it may have just been a two point play and the Pacers could've gone back on offense and tied it up. However that wasn't the case and the Pistons broke the tie and went ahead by four.



How does the flagrant foul cause the Pistons to score on that possession. It was a put back tip dunk

Stryder
06-02-2004, 09:14 AM
Pacers lost the Game way before Ron got the Flagrant , some people are too blind or choose not too see this , if we would have played ball like we did in the first quarter and not got lazy we would hve never had to worry about the pistons being so close ..it would have been a blowout.

I concur.

TheSauceMaster
06-02-2004, 09:19 AM
How does the flagrant foul cause the Pistons to score on that possession. It was a put back tip dunk

Maybe some people missed the UB , I am with ya

Aw Heck
06-02-2004, 09:19 AM
Pacers lost the Game way before Ron got the Flagrant , some people are too blind or choose not too see this , if we would have played ball like we did in the first quarter and not got lazy we would hve never had to worry about the pistons being so close ..it would have been a blowout.

I'm not aruing against that. What you said above is true. But Ron's flagrant seriously hindered the Pacers' chances of staying in the game and possibly winning it. In that type of game, there's a lot more pressure on an offense to score when it's down 4 compared to down 2 or tied.

But yeah AJ's failed fastbreak and numerous other plays led to the Pacers' downfall. I'm just saying that Ron's flagrant helped put the nail in the Pacers' coffin.

Fool
06-02-2004, 09:21 AM
It allowed the opportunity. Thats why its refered to as a four point play. Sure the other team still has to capitalize on the chance but they wouldn't have had that chance without the foul. Just like in "three point plays" the player still has to make the shot and the free throw but we don't call it a 1+2 point play.

Aw Heck
06-02-2004, 09:22 AM
Two free throws plus a possession= four point play. Had Ron just given him a regular foul, it may have just been a two point play and the Pacers could've gone back on offense and tied it up. However that wasn't the case and the Pistons broke the tie and went ahead by four.



How does the flagrant foul cause the Pistons to score on that possession. It was a put back tip dunk

Well, flagrant fouls, as you know, consist of two free throws plus a possession. So the flagrant first led to 2 pts by Rip at the foul line. Then the Pistons get the ball back. Pistons score, 2 more points. So on one offensive possession, the Pistons gain four points. Hence, four point play.

indygeezer
06-02-2004, 09:24 AM
The FF DID give them an emotional lift. They were already shifting momentum and that just pushed them over the top...or did it take some of the wind out of us. Either way, it gave them just a bit more edge.




(I still think RA should have flopped rather than retaliate)

TheSauceMaster
06-02-2004, 09:26 AM
Well it's a 4 point play because someone didnt block sheed out , so our lack of defense made it a 4 point play , if we would have blocked out and played good defense it's only 2 points.

Dukins
06-02-2004, 09:27 AM
Rather it was one net point or four points. The outcome of the flagrant was indeed a four point swing. Just another bonehead play at the wrong time. The posession was the most important play in the last 3 min.

Aw Heck
06-02-2004, 09:29 AM
Well it's a 4 point play because someone didnt block sheed out , so our lack of defense made it a 4 point play , if we would have blocked out and played good defense it's only 2 points.

I'm not saying Ron's flagrant automatically gave the Pistons four points. It gave the Pistons a shot at four, possibly five points on one possession.

Hell it could've been a 0 point play if Rip missed the free throws and the Pistons didn't score.

The point is 4 points were scored on one Piston offensive possession. That is why it is a four point play.

Unclebuck
06-02-2004, 09:31 AM
It allowed the opportunity. Thats why its refered to as a four point play. Sure the other team still has to capitalize on the chance but they wouldn't have had that chance without the foul. Just like in "three point plays" the player still has to make the shot and the free throw but we don't call it a 1+2 point play.



That simply is not true, they had the chance prior to the FF. They had the ball. The only thing the FF changed was the Pistons got 2 free throws and maybe a few more seconds on the shot clock.

Unclebuck
06-02-2004, 09:37 AM
Two free throws plus a possession= four point play. Had Ron just given him a regular foul, it may have just been a two point play and the Pacers could've gone back on offense and tied it up. However that wasn't the case and the Pistons broke the tie and went ahead by four.



How does the flagrant foul cause the Pistons to score on that possession. It was a put back tip dunk

Well, flagrant fouls, as you know, consist of two free throws plus a possession. So the flagrant first led to 2 pts by Rip at the foul line. Then the Pistons get the ball back. Pistons score, 2 more points. So on one offensive possession, the Pistons gain four points. Hence, four point play.


OK now I see where the miscommunication is. Ron's flagrant only costs the pacers two points, but there is no question the Pistons got 4 points on that possession

Aw Heck
06-02-2004, 09:38 AM
That simply is not true, they had the chance prior to the FF. They had the ball. The only thing the FF changed was the Pistons got 2 free throws and maybe a few more seconds on the shot clock.

But if there is no flagrant and the Pistons scored, the Pacers would've had another chance on offense to try tie it up. With the flagrant, the Pacers don't have that opportunity. The flagrant allowed 4 unanswered Piston points.

Fool
06-02-2004, 09:39 AM
Unclebuck, the only other way to get four points in one possession is to get fouled while making a three pointer. The flagrant gave them foul shots plus the possession afterwards. On ordinary fouls the opposing team gets the ball if the two foul shots are made.


[posted this while you were posting your last post, wooo way to many "posts" in that sentence]

diego
06-02-2004, 10:00 AM
Rons FF may not have solely lost the game, but it was very deflating. It pumped up the Pistions and their fans and gave them their FIRST lead of the game. It was completely bad timing. Without the foul, they would have had to score on our defense which wasnt easy and possibly ended up the possession still tied with us, hence never taking the lead. After the FF we never regained a lead or tied the game. Tell me how it was not a difference maker.

TheSauceMaster
06-02-2004, 10:06 AM
Jermaine O'Neal missing a two-footer that could have tied the score , AJ Blew A big TIme Layup , I am sure I could keep going but I wont . Hmm if you wanna look at why we lost it was a team loss.

diego
06-02-2004, 10:12 AM
Jermaine O'Neal missing a two-footer that could have tied the score , AJ Blew A big TIme Layup , I am sure I could keep going but I wont . Hmm if you wanna look at why we lost it was a team loss.


Look, im nto saying Ronnie lost that game by himself, but to selfishly overlook his plays down the stretch and pick out other players plays is wrong. What about Rons 30 foot three point shot. I mean it goes both way. Agree the team lost the game, but Rons FF was a definite killer. It puts us down 4 with a few minutes to go against arguably one of the best defensive teams ever. Do you think it was a smart move?

TheSauceMaster
06-02-2004, 10:16 AM
We lost the Game waaaaay before Rons FF , ROn's just a Excuse why we lost the Series , when Last Series he was the Savior and Main reason we won Round 2 , I think No Artest in ROund 2 we lose to the HEAT ..yes I said we lose to the HEAT in Round 2 .

sweabs
06-02-2004, 10:18 AM
We lost the Game waaaaay before Rons FF , ROn's just a Excuse why we lost the Series , when Last Series he was the Savior and Main reason we won Round 2 , I think No Artest in ROund 2 we lose to the HEAT ..yes I said we lose to the HEAT in Round 2 .

Agreed...no question.

diego
06-02-2004, 10:22 AM
We lost the Game waaaaay before Rons FF , ROn's just a Excuse why we lost the Series , when Last Series he was the Savior and Main reason we won Round 2 , I think No Artest in ROund 2 we lose to the HEAT ..yes I said we lose to the HEAT in Round 2 .



NO we did not lose the game way before...yes momentum was swinging and we had not played well with the lead, however at that point the game was tied and thats the bottom line. You can say this and that and whatever you want, but bottom line is we went from being tied to down foour in that sequence. Period.

As far as the heat series goes, i agree with you.

I love Ronnie and think he was more valuable than JO this season and hope to God we do not trade him, but i am not going to let that affect my judgement of his poor decisions down the stretch in this game. I am not talking about every other game or sereis, i ma talking about this game and that stretch.

I am not debating Ron and his worth, i feel the same way you do Sauce, but that play really hurt us, but from what i have seen of Ron he will grow from it, it will drive him this offseason, and he will come back next year with vengeance.

TheSauceMaster
06-02-2004, 10:32 AM
I think the Loss was meant to be , I think it was just delaying our pain if we won , JO from his comments I don't think he could have played a game 7 and tins was out for sure .

I just didn't see anyone else wanting to step up and fill in this missing pieces we needed to win.

I agree the FF was piviotal but then again we made it a respectable game 6 , I think we would have been blown out in 7 if we played

sweabs
06-02-2004, 10:35 AM
I don't think I could have taken another home-game loss...let alone a Game 7 ECF loss at home.

TheSauceMaster
06-02-2004, 10:39 AM
Yeah Losing 3 games at home isn't something I would want on my resume and having HCA makes it look even worse. After I attended Game 5 and seen us lose , I began at that moment and that same night to accept it wasn't our year, maybe that's why I feel so calm now.

I went into game 6 with no expectations and a win would have been wonderful , but I think a game 7 loss at home would have left me feeling worse than Game 5 .

Fool
06-02-2004, 10:39 AM
Jermaine O'Neal missing a two-footer that could have tied the score , AJ Blew A big TIme Layup , I am sure I could keep going but I wont . Hmm if you wanna look at why we lost it was a team loss.

Here is the problem with listing all the missed shots.

Pacers FG% = 36.4
Pistons FG% = 32.9

There were tons of missed shots and blown lay-ups in this game. To say the Pacers lost the game on poor shooting just isn't true. They had a lead all game on poor shooting. The Pacers were holding on to the game. Many of these games have ended with the team with the lead holding on at the end. IMO Artest let go and thats what lost the game. I'm not saying he's the worst player ever or anything, I am just saying that with all the problems both teams were having the Pacers were winning this game. The Pistons had been hovering around 4 points to tied with the Pacers from the begining of the 4th quarter, it was not till Artest's foul that they were able to get their only lead in the game. (I'm not trying to harp on this, its just my oppinion )

Arcadian
06-02-2004, 11:11 AM
So the point is that it wasn't a 4 point play? Fine.

It was a stupid thing to do and impacted the game.

TheSauceMaster
06-02-2004, 11:18 AM
So the point is that it wasn't a 4 point play? Fine.

It was a stupid thing to do and impacted the game.

True but we still lose the series , even if we win game 6 ..game 7 is a loss and no thanks it would have been harder on me going to a game 7 at conseco and seeing the Pacers lose and having to hear Rasheed Wallace sing his praises in our House for the 3rd time.

LAPacer
06-02-2004, 11:18 AM
So the point is that it wasn't a 4 point play? Fine.

It was a stupid thing to do and impacted the game.

Very stupid thing to do.

Thats the problem with Artest. He is too intense. You take away his intensity and he barely gets off the bench. His athleticism isn't great, neither his shooting, or bball IQ. But he is strong as they come, and Rip... he is as skinny as they come. So it looked worse than it really was.

sweabs
06-02-2004, 11:23 AM
and Rip... he is as skinny as they come.

I believe you are forgetting someone...

http://www.cnnsi.com/inside_game/marty_burns/news/2003/05/08/shootaround_0508/prince.jpg

LAPacer
06-02-2004, 11:30 AM
and Rip... he is as skinny as they come.

I believe you are forgetting someone...

http://www.cnnsi.com/inside_game/marty_burns/news/2003/05/08/shootaround_0508/prince.jpg

hahaha :rotflmao: how could I forget.

TheSauceMaster
06-02-2004, 11:31 AM
So I assume people think Ron is worse than Dennis Rodman ? Sheed Has had his moments too ;)

I could probably name a few players that were rowdy in the NBA , Ron has improved a 100 fold in the past year and he has a couple times he has went alittle stray but he has proven he can improve and I think he will improve more next year. I could probably name 20 + teams who would be more than happy to take a chance on Ron , teams would trip over themseleves if they knew Ron was up for grabs.

Fool
06-02-2004, 11:35 AM
and Rip... he is as skinny as they come.

I believe you are forgetting someone...

http://www.cnnsi.com/inside_game/marty_burns/news/2003/05/08/shootaround_0508/prince.jpg

hahaha :rotflmao: how could I forget.


Thats very funny!