July 18, 2025 • 20 mins
We dive into the complex world of NBA officiating, exploring the technical definitions and real-world applications of flagrant and technical fouls with certified referee Nick.
• Technical foul: penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct or non-physical infractions of rules
• Flagrant foul: contact considered unnecessary per the NBA rulebook, with varying severity levels
• Analysis of the 2016 NBA Finals incident between LeBron James and Draymond Green
• Comparison to Draymond's kick on Steven Adams and questions of consistency in officiating
• Examination of WNBA flagrants between Angel Reese and Caitlin Clark
• Discussion of how blocks and head contact are officiated
• Insight into referee training on root cause vs rule enforcement
• Perspective on the challenges referees face making split-second decisions
Be kind to your referees – they're making tough calls in real-time without the benefit of slow-motion replay, and they're rarely the reason you lose a game.
https://linktr.ee/GetABucketShow for more content!!!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
And I tell you it's like something.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
David, I'll tell you what that works.
All right, hold on, I'm goingto do a little marker real fast.
All right, that?
So in terms of again, wealready know we're going to talk
about the referees, the talk, alittle picture of this and then
(00:25):
also and let's go to thank youfor telling that one to the next
story, thousand penalties.
Come on, full up, full up,thank you.
So technical foul it gives likedifferent types.
That's the thing I hate.
But it didn't say like aspecific definition, like it
does for flagrant.
So technically technical foulwon't come from the book you
(00:52):
didn't find a listing fortechnical foul in the nba book,
or they have technical foul andthen it goes different
variations like holdcessivetimeouts, delay of game, number
of penalties, basket rings,stuff like that.
So it tells you the type.
But for flagrant fouls it saysIf contact committed against the
(01:17):
player, with or without theball, is interpreted to be
unnecessary, flagrant foulpenalty will be assessed.
A personal foul is charged tobe to the offender and a team
foul is charged to the.
And then they go into detailabout that.
But it doesn't say technicalfoul is by the whole block.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
So I was trying to have it give like a definition
sort of thing Ah, gotcha, yeah.
Yeah.
There are two, generally twotypes of technical fouls in the
NBA non unsportsmanlike, which,like I understand why you can't
call it just a sportsmanliketechnical, but like Alright, so
we're gonna die in four minutes.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Alright, so we're gonna start it with that.
We have about 15 to 20 beforethey start to get overheated.
Okay, well, really 25, 30, butI want to make sure we get
comfortable.
So 15 to 20, so that puts us atlike 50, 55.
All right, ready, yep, and like, primarily, it's just gonna be
(02:19):
us talking cameras are there atthis, so different angle.
So if we mess up, we got othershit to pick up on.
That's all, alright, peace,what's up?
Everybody?
It's your favorite show'sfavorite show.
Get a Bucket.
I'm your host, trayden, asusual.
Hope you're all having awonderful, wonderful day.
As you can see, we got my guy,nick the statistician, here, and
(02:40):
I don't know if y'all noticedthis, but we do have a nice
little venue here.
I like the chat, the chat, feelcool.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
How's everything with you, though, nick?
It's going well, everything'sfantastic.
Thanks for having me on again.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Well, I mean, you're always welcome.
You're always welcome,especially when we had a
wonderful argument the other day.
I said argument, that's right,we were playing basketball and
we ended up talking aboutflagrance and technical fouls
Right, but we had a wonderfulexample to give.
But we have others to talkabout as well.
But so we'll start off with onewhat's a technical foul and a
(03:16):
flagrant foul?
Now, a technical foul andhopefully we don't get nobody
joining the show, and hopefullywe don't get nobody joining the
show.
It's hopefully fingers crossed.
But a technical foul is apenalty assessed for
unsportsmanlike conduct or othernon-physical infractions of the
rule.
Now I just want to say he'sshaking his head, that's from
(03:36):
Wikipedia, and you know he shookhis head, yes, and they say
don't trust Wikipedia.
But he says Wikipedia is okaywith this one.
So that's a technical foul, gotyou?
Now I'm going to readspecifically from the NBA rule
book what it says, what aflagrant foul is, because you
might be wondering why I saywhat it was from the NBA rule
book.
From technical, because theyjust gave out a whole bunch of
(03:56):
types of what a technical foulcould lead to or the result from
.
But a flagrant foul is ifcontact committed against a
player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be
unnecessary, a flagrant foulPenalty one will be assessed.
A personal foul is charged tothe offender and a team foul is
charged to the penalty.
One, two free throws shall beattempted.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
So y'all kind of get a gist ofwhat the flagrant foul is.
(04:19):
So, nick, did we mess upanything?
Speaker 1 (04:21):
there.
Yeah, no, you didn't messanything up.
There's a, so flagrants aregenerally in the NBA contact
that is either unnecessary orexcessive, and there are certain
indicators that the NBA goes by.
I don't think they're listed inthe rulebook, but there are
(04:43):
certain indicators that they goby that you probably have heard
on a broadcast or something.
Things like blow to the head,wind up, things like that that
are generally sort of sharedwith the referees but might not
be officially listed.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
Okay, okay, gotcha, and you might be wondering why I
asked Nick, when Nick isactually certified as a referee.
You know, fun fact, I did refone time, so I got a little
knowledge as a referee myself.
You know what I'm saying.
But he actually trained for itand got certified for it.
So you know he does actuallyref and the reason why I brought
him on to the show is, again,he's looking at things from a
(05:21):
referee standpoint.
I'm looking at things from abasketball player standpoint.
We both have refed and playedbefore he's played.
I've refed Can't say it plural,but it's a ref's a ref right,
and we use, let's say, forexample, this example with
LeBron James and Draymond Green2016 NBA Finals.
My personal opinion LeBronpushes down Draymond and then
(05:48):
waits to step over Draymond.
Now I'm like that was the moreegregious act in that situation,
right?
I think Nick kind of had like,oh no, you agreed on that part,
but you felt as though Draymonddid deserve the flagrant.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Yeah.
So my interpretation is that,as a person, when we're talking
about character, lebron is moreculpable for what's going on
there.
He's the one that creates thecontact and then he goes to step
over, whether he's waiting orhe's sort of like it's just sort
of then the gears start to turnand he goes I'm going to step
(06:24):
over Draymond and he goes to dothat as Draymond is getting up,
you know, because the play isstill going on and Draymond's
like I've got to get back intothe defensive play.
But I don't disagree fully withthe NBA's interpretation of
what happened later, with theNBA's interpretation of what
(06:45):
happened later, which was thatLeBron was later assessed
retroactively a technical foulfor stepping over Draymond and
Draymond was assessed a flagrantfoul for his.
We've disagreed on how tocharacterize this when we talk
about free shots.
So arm movement.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
I don't.
So you think that heintentionally tries to hit Braun
in the little brawn.
You know what I'm saying and Iunderstand that I genuinely do
right.
My thing is this Braun puthimself in that position because
Draymond admits he's trying tohit Braun after Braun waits to
(07:24):
step over him.
That's impeding Draymond fromgoing upward.
So, by my interpretation, whenwe read the definition of
flagrant foul, you use wordchoice that could have been
deemed as hostile.
Anybody could deem that ashostile if they chose to,
because it's subjective in theday.
There are words that are usedin flagrant fouls definition
(07:49):
that make me wonder.
Okay, well, you said blow tothe head.
Did Draymond Green not get hitin the back of the head?
Like that's not the head tohead matchup.
We want to really be worriedabout, Like you know what I'm
saying.
So I think, by definition, if wewanted, like you know what I'm
saying.
So I think, by definition, ifwe wanted, like you can say
that's wordsmithing it cool.
But by definition, if we'regoing to upgrade draymond's to a
(08:14):
flavor, we could have done thesame thing for problem which,
personally, if I'm a referee, inthat moment I'm going to look
at the root cause and say, hey,I might let draymond pass,
because it did seem like thiswas a call because of the OKC
thing with Stephen Adams.
Because let me ask you this IfBraun and Draymond are in the
(08:34):
Stephen Adams situation,draymond kicks Braun the way he
did Stephen Adams how do youthink the league reacts?
Speaker 1 (08:43):
Obviously, it's impossible for me to say for
sure.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
No, no, no.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
How do you think?
I would hope that they wouldreact similarly.
I personally would probably, inboth situations, would prefer
that Draymond receive a flagrantBecause, even if he doesn't
kick Stephen Adams or LeBronwhoever on purpose, it's a
(09:09):
reckless act, it's unnecessary.
And Stephen Adams does get, youknow, kicked in the Kiwis.
So you know, I don't want so, Iwouldn't wish for the league to
be inconsistent in that ruling,so I would.
(09:30):
If I'm making the unilateraldecision in that situation,
regardless of whether it'sStephen Adams or LeBron James,
I'm like, listen, it's acompletely unnecessary flail.
I understand you're trying todraw a foul, but you do kick the
person in the nuts.
That is a flail.
Do kick the person in the nuts.
That is a flagrant and I wouldaward that after, like as a
member of the league in Scranton, after the game.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
But see, it sounds like it's subjective though,
because again he ain't get aflagrant.
Hell, I would have givenDraymond a flagrant.
I like one of my favoritecharacters is Wednesday.
I'd like to protect the Addamsfamily.
You know what I'm saying.
Like one of my favoritecharacters is Wednesday.
I'd like to protect the Adamsfamily.
You know what I'm saying.
Like I would have issued aflagrant then and it seemed like
that moment was more so.
Oh, we're going to issue aflagrant now because we missed
(10:14):
that call.
Which kind of when we weretalking kind of off air, we were
talking about missed calls,right, like how did you deal
with the missed call?
Well, I think it's subjective.
You can be fair, you can beunfair, but I do wish that
referees would look at the gamefrom a context basis and say,
okay, this could be a littlenastier than what it normally
(10:37):
might be.
For example, we're going toswitch to the WNBA.
You know what I'm saying.
Y'all see the jersey.
Y'all already knew we was goingto get a little controversial.
Angel Reese and Kaitlyn Clarkthey both got a flagrant foul
against one another and I wouldventure to say that Kaitlyn's
might've seen more reckless, butAngel, she got a flagrant foul
and she's swatting footballright.
(10:58):
In my estimation, that happensa lot of times and you can
easily get hit in the back ofthe head.
I don't think hers wasmalicious, and there were other
people in the play tooafterwards as well, so she ends
up falling.
It gets called a flagrant.
I don't have an issue with it,but other people did.
What would be your thoughts onthat sort of situation?
Speaker 1 (11:21):
So when a player gets thrown out of the ground, you
have to and and you know you'regoing to call or you're leaning
towards calling something.
Uh, that is not a a standardpersonal foul.
The first thing you have to dois look at it from.
Was this person?
Was the contact what we're,what we have an issue?
(11:42):
Was this during live or deadball play?
Was this sort of a basketballplay that was reckless or
unnecessary?
Or was this just sort of ashove that is immaterial to the
game of basketball, wherethey're no longer playing
basketball, they're just tryingto get into a conflict In that
situation?
From what I remember, it wassort of a reckless, overzealous
(12:09):
rebounding effort, we'll say, ifI remember correctly, or some
off-ball action.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
You're talking about with Angel and Caitlin?
Yeah, caitlin is going.
The play I was talking aboutwas she was going up for the
layup and Angel's swatting toblock it.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Okay, okay, yeah, and she hits Caitlin in the back of
the head.
So this is a basketball actionthat you would decide whether
it's a flagrant or a normalcommon foul.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
What would make it a normal common foul if you get
hit in the head Because again,it's a blow to the head.
That's my thing with Draymondand Braun.
You got hit in the head Becauseagain, it's a blow to the head.
That's my thing with Draymondand Braun.
You got hit in the head so itcould be deemed a flagrant.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Contact to the head and neck is a major indicator of
a flagrant foul.
One of the big things we'regoing to be looking at as a
referee to determine whetherit's a flagrant or a common foul
, is whether there's windup.
Windup would be a big thing,especially when you're looking
to block.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
How much of a windup?
Because, again, if I'm jumpingand like this, like my wing, I
got a 6'6 wingspan, ladies andgentlemen.
So I'm swatting, I'm turn eightand this ain't even a windup,
but this jump look wide as hell.
So it was like is this aflagrant?
Speaker 1 (13:19):
So if a player is not , this is up to the referee's
judgment at the end of the day.
But what do they teach you guys?
What do they teach you?
So what they teach us isessentially, if they're going
for a big block like DwightHoward style, this is a windup
and you might not be trying tohit the person in the head,
right, but you have to be verycareful when you do that.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
So it has to be.
The hand or any part of yourbody cannot hit that person in
the head.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Yeah, again, it's trying to tackle reckless
behavior that can result inthings like concussions, Because
the number one thing you don'twant to have happen is we
understand now how severeconcussions can be, so you want
to try to dissuade players frombehaviors that can lead to that
as much as possible, Right?
(14:07):
So yeah, it can be completelyinadvertent where you wind up,
you go for the block and you hitsomebody in the head.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
That would be issued a flagrant.
So what happens?
And I'm not, trying todiscredit this man's block at
all, because it's a good block.
Shout out JR Smith too.
But Ron's block, chase down,block right.
What happens if he hits theball but, like his elbow, hits
like iggy in the head, but it'sif he did it because he jumped
higher than he shut up.
Again to jr smith, like I.
(14:38):
Is that a?
Speaker 1 (14:38):
flagrant foul.
So in that situation um,because it's on the play, you
get away with a lot more contact.
You can block a shot and thenget called for a shooting foul.
That can happen.
But you get away with a lotmore contact when you get the
ball first and in that situation, if the arm if I remember
(15:01):
LeBron is sort of here and whenhe blocks the ball, if he blocks
the ball and then grazes Iggyon the head, we would not refer
to that as a free throw.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
I didn't say graze, but I said hit Like hit.
Yeah, if you can elbow to thehead.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
I think that's still going to suck for Iggy.
So it's a double whammy forIggy.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Yeah, and that's one of those.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
So it would be one of those situations where is is
the contact unnecessary?
No, is the contact excessive?
No, then we would say no, youknow, there's no foul, um, or
there's no flavor and foul inthat situation and there has to
be a foul also to call aflagrant Um.
So in that case, I have seenplays where, uh, a player in the
(15:46):
NBA, especially if you block ashot.
I've almost never seen a play Idon't remember the last time I
saw a play in the NBA wheresomebody got called for a foul
after a block.
Anyway, again, that can happen.
And I've seen plays where itprobably should have, but I've
not seen it called.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
I was looking, I wanted to see a foul called
after a block, like how doesthat work?
I was going to say I waslooking, I wanted to see if that
called after a block, like howdoes that work?
Speaker 1 (16:07):
I was actually going back and watching the 08 finals.
I think there was one.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
I forget who on who but I believe there's that
sounds vicious.
If it weren't for my team, thatsounds vicious.
My boys was in that day.
But okay, referee, before weclose up, as a referee, are you
guys taught to pay attention toroot cause?
Because, again, I look atflagrants and technicals as like
(16:37):
, if a flagrant is issued, it'sdeemed more, it's worse Because
it's deemed as a physicalcontact as opposed to a
technical to be taunting.
You're just talking so you canget a technical, but flagrant
involves physicality.
It's deemed as excessive,unnecessary.
Does root cause factor in atall for you guys?
Or do y'all just go by the bookand just say, hey, if it hits
this definition, call space fade.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
So what's important is that we don't have, we don't
get to rewrite the rules.
That's not our position.
That's for whoever's in chargeof the competition committee,
the NBA, it's the owners and thecoaches who are part of that
committee.
So we have to referee by thebook.
However, there is some leeway.
(17:20):
There are occasions where we canlook at, for example, a player
who initiates contact and causesa legal defender in legal
defense position to becomeillegal as a result of the
contact by the offensive player.
In those instances we aretaught as referees to if the
defender is basically doing allthat he can to be in legal
(17:43):
guarding position.
We're taught to referee thedefense.
If the defender hasn't doneanything wrong.
We're not.
We should not call a foul.
There are still times where,because some referees are really
looking for those arms and thatthe angle that they're at, that
they might erroneously call afoul and I think players would
have a valid complaint.
But, um, believe me, I've beenhit with with that foul as a
(18:06):
player myself, where I've gottenmy arm comes down inadvertently
.
But as a referee, it's myopinion that we would be in
error to penalize the defensefor what an offensive player
does.
But in terms of technicals,unsportsmanlike behavior,
flagrance, everybody can get it,everybody can catch one, but
(18:29):
all right so I'm, I'm, I'm withyou.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
Everybody can catch, can catch these technicals,
right, you can catch these t'sand f's, I guess.
But if someone is viewed as avictim for me I don't want to
give them the okay, I guess,quote, unquote, worst call which
I look at it like that, right,you don't look at a flagrant
technical as worse other peoplelike I asked one of my friends,
(18:53):
he said not necessarily, butagain, like I'm looking at
because you're saying, oh, likeit's a physical reason why you
got issued this one, not notjust a verbal, like sticks and
stones may break my bones, butwords, but words may never hurt
me.
Like, so taunting is worse thanphysical.
So that's why I say flavormight be viewed as as worse than
technical.
But I don't know, I, I, I, I, Ihate the fact that the victim
(19:17):
gets worse, at least in my eyes.
The worst treatment if they gotboth in using brawn and dream on
it and incident, but they bothwere issued a technical or
personal file and that's it Cool, like I.
Or or flagrants, cool, butbecause it got issued, I
upgraded to a flagrant.
(19:37):
The perception of it looked bad, especially when the root cause
was broad in that scenario,cause if you flip it.
I do wonder if they do the samething the same way.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Um, again, I do wonder if they do the same thing
the same way Again.
That's one of those where weprobably won't know, although
it's still possible.
Lebron and Draymond are stillplaying but we probably will
never know.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
We'll never know, because that's prime LeBron and
prime Draymond Right.
You know what I'm saying.
We won't know what thatDraymond Right.
So, like you know what I'msaying, like that's like we
won't know what that would looklike, right, and I would bet my
life savings and everything thatyou love on.
Why is it everything I love andeverything I love too, that
(20:24):
they would treat it differently?
You can't do that stuff.
I'm just saying I'm thatconfident you wouldn't lose
nothing.
That's just what I'm saying, butI'm definitely curious what
other people think about as welltoo.
But again, this was a very Idon't want to say heated
argument, but it was an argumenton the last day at one point in
(20:44):
time.
But I also thought too, it wasa great talking point as well,
because referees and playersthey view things, they view the
games differently.
Like I know, players want thereferees to be more root cause
oriented, and maybe you guys aretaught A focus on what is
actually occurring.
So I mean, I do get that aswell too.
But, nick, I mean you gotanything you want to say before
(21:06):
we close up Shaka?
Speaker 1 (21:09):
I think that about does it.
Yeah, I mean, refereeing isdifficult.
Go out there and referee a gameif you want, and you'll find
out it's not easy.
We don't get the slow motionreplays that you see on the
broadcast from the perfect angle.
We get one shot at it.
It's going 20 miles an hour andit's difficult.
We're going to make mistakesand at the end of the day, we
(21:30):
don't cause you to miss all yourchoke shots.
We're not like very rarely arewe going to cause you to lose a
game.
So be kind.
Most of them are doing it fornot great pay, if any.
So be kind to your fellowreferees and they might give you
a little bit more grace.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
You never know.
You know what?
Because that actually remindsme of what.
It's another episode that, Iguess, but we'll talk about when
Kelsey Plum and Angel Reese andall of them were talking about
the wrestling and saying howthey are costing them games.
We'll talk more about thatanother time.
But yeah, it is.
It's interesting.
Being a ref, I'll admit that itwas fun.
(22:06):
I don't know if I would keepdoing it, but maybe I'll try to
do one game recorded-wise, justto see how it is and give a
little content that way.
But, nick, I greatly appreciateyour time and effort, per usual
.
You'll be back on the showagain, don't worry, and I'm
surprised we actually didn'ttalk stats today, so we may
change that next time.
But until next time, ladies andgentlemen, I greatly appreciate
y'all for listening.
(22:27):
Definitely stay tuned.
And again, this is Nick, myname is Trey.
I'm the host of Get a Bucket.
Please make sure to like,subscribe, comment, tell anyone
about the show.
Hope y'all have a good one.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Take care.
And I tell you it's like something.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
David, I'll tell you what that works.
All right, hold on, I'm goingto do a little marker real fast.
All right, that?
So in terms of again, wealready know we're going to talk
about the referees, the talk, alittle picture of this and then
(00:25):
also and let's go to thank youfor telling that one to the next
story, thousand penalties.
Come on, full up, full up,thank you.
So technical foul it gives likedifferent types.
That's the thing I hate.
But it didn't say like aspecific definition, like it
does for flagrant.
So technically technical foulwon't come from the book you
(00:52):
didn't find a listing fortechnical foul in the nba book,
or they have technical foul andthen it goes different
variations like holdcessivetimeouts, delay of game, number
of penalties, basket rings,stuff like that.
So it tells you the type.
But for flagrant fouls it saysIf contact committed against the
(01:17):
player, with or without theball, is interpreted to be
unnecessary, flagrant foulpenalty will be assessed.
A personal foul is charged tobe to the offender and a team
foul is charged to the.
And then they go into detailabout that.
But it doesn't say technicalfoul is by the whole block.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
So I was trying to have it give like a definition
sort of thing Ah, gotcha, yeah.
Yeah.
There are two, generally twotypes of technical fouls in the
NBA non unsportsmanlike, which,like I understand why you can't
call it just a sportsmanliketechnical, but like Alright, so
we're gonna die in four minutes.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
Alright, so we're gonna start it with that.
We have about 15 to 20 beforethey start to get overheated.
Okay, well, really 25, 30, butI want to make sure we get
comfortable.
So 15 to 20, so that puts us atlike 50, 55.
All right, ready, yep, and like, primarily, it's just gonna be
(02:19):
us talking cameras are there atthis, so different angle.
So if we mess up, we got othershit to pick up on.
That's all, alright, peace,what's up?
Everybody?
It's your favorite show'sfavorite show.
Get a Bucket.
I'm your host, trayden, asusual.
Hope you're all having awonderful, wonderful day.
As you can see, we got my guy,nick the statistician, here, and
(02:40):
I don't know if y'all noticedthis, but we do have a nice
little venue here.
I like the chat, the chat, feelcool.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
How's everything with you, though, nick?
It's going well, everything'sfantastic.
Thanks for having me on again.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Well, I mean, you're always welcome.
You're always welcome,especially when we had a
wonderful argument the other day.
I said argument, that's right,we were playing basketball and
we ended up talking aboutflagrance and technical fouls
Right, but we had a wonderfulexample to give.
But we have others to talkabout as well.
But so we'll start off with onewhat's a technical foul and a
(03:16):
flagrant foul?
Now, a technical foul andhopefully we don't get nobody
joining the show, and hopefullywe don't get nobody joining the
show.
It's hopefully fingers crossed.
But a technical foul is apenalty assessed for
unsportsmanlike conduct or othernon-physical infractions of the
rule.
Now I just want to say he'sshaking his head, that's from
(03:36):
Wikipedia, and you know he shookhis head, yes, and they say
don't trust Wikipedia.
But he says Wikipedia is okaywith this one.
So that's a technical foul, gotyou?
Now I'm going to readspecifically from the NBA rule
book what it says, what aflagrant foul is, because you
might be wondering why I saywhat it was from the NBA rule
book.
From technical, because theyjust gave out a whole bunch of
(03:56):
types of what a technical foulcould lead to or the result from
.
But a flagrant foul is ifcontact committed against a
player, with or without the ball, is interpreted to be
unnecessary, a flagrant foulPenalty one will be assessed.
A personal foul is charged tothe offender and a team foul is
charged to the penalty.
One, two free throws shall beattempted.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
So y'all kind of get a gist ofwhat the flagrant foul is.
(04:19):
So, nick, did we mess upanything?
Speaker 1 (04:21):
there.
Yeah, no, you didn't messanything up.
There's a, so flagrants aregenerally in the NBA contact
that is either unnecessary orexcessive, and there are certain
indicators that the NBA goes by.
I don't think they're listed inthe rulebook, but there are
(04:43):
certain indicators that they goby that you probably have heard
on a broadcast or something.
Things like blow to the head,wind up, things like that that
are generally sort of sharedwith the referees but might not
be officially listed.
Speaker 2 (04:59):
Okay, okay, gotcha, and you might be wondering why I
asked Nick, when Nick isactually certified as a referee.
You know, fun fact, I did refone time, so I got a little
knowledge as a referee myself.
You know what I'm saying.
But he actually trained for itand got certified for it.
So you know he does actuallyref and the reason why I brought
him on to the show is, again,he's looking at things from a
(05:21):
referee standpoint.
I'm looking at things from abasketball player standpoint.
We both have refed and playedbefore he's played.
I've refed Can't say it plural,but it's a ref's a ref right,
and we use, let's say, forexample, this example with
LeBron James and Draymond Green2016 NBA Finals.
My personal opinion LeBronpushes down Draymond and then
(05:48):
waits to step over Draymond.
Now I'm like that was the moreegregious act in that situation,
right?
I think Nick kind of had like,oh no, you agreed on that part,
but you felt as though Draymonddid deserve the flagrant.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Yeah.
So my interpretation is that,as a person, when we're talking
about character, lebron is moreculpable for what's going on
there.
He's the one that creates thecontact and then he goes to step
over, whether he's waiting orhe's sort of like it's just sort
of then the gears start to turnand he goes I'm going to step
(06:24):
over Draymond and he goes to dothat as Draymond is getting up,
you know, because the play isstill going on and Draymond's
like I've got to get back intothe defensive play.
But I don't disagree fully withthe NBA's interpretation of
what happened later, with theNBA's interpretation of what
(06:45):
happened later, which was thatLeBron was later assessed
retroactively a technical foulfor stepping over Draymond and
Draymond was assessed a flagrantfoul for his.
We've disagreed on how tocharacterize this when we talk
about free shots.
So arm movement.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
I don't.
So you think that heintentionally tries to hit Braun
in the little brawn.
You know what I'm saying and Iunderstand that I genuinely do
right.
My thing is this Braun puthimself in that position because
Draymond admits he's trying tohit Braun after Braun waits to
(07:24):
step over him.
That's impeding Draymond fromgoing upward.
So, by my interpretation, whenwe read the definition of
flagrant foul, you use wordchoice that could have been
deemed as hostile.
Anybody could deem that ashostile if they chose to,
because it's subjective in theday.
There are words that are usedin flagrant fouls definition
(07:49):
that make me wonder.
Okay, well, you said blow tothe head.
Did Draymond Green not get hitin the back of the head?
Like that's not the head tohead matchup.
We want to really be worriedabout, Like you know what I'm
saying.
So I think, by definition, if wewanted, like you know what I'm
saying.
So I think, by definition, ifwe wanted, like you can say
that's wordsmithing it cool.
But by definition, if we'regoing to upgrade draymond's to a
(08:14):
flavor, we could have done thesame thing for problem which,
personally, if I'm a referee, inthat moment I'm going to look
at the root cause and say, hey,I might let draymond pass,
because it did seem like thiswas a call because of the OKC
thing with Stephen Adams.
Because let me ask you this IfBraun and Draymond are in the
(08:34):
Stephen Adams situation,draymond kicks Braun the way he
did Stephen Adams how do youthink the league reacts?
Speaker 1 (08:43):
Obviously, it's impossible for me to say for
sure.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
No, no, no.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
How do you think?
I would hope that they wouldreact similarly.
I personally would probably, inboth situations, would prefer
that Draymond receive a flagrantBecause, even if he doesn't
kick Stephen Adams or LeBronwhoever on purpose, it's a
(09:09):
reckless act, it's unnecessary.
And Stephen Adams does get, youknow, kicked in the Kiwis.
So you know, I don't want so, Iwouldn't wish for the league to
be inconsistent in that ruling,so I would.
(09:30):
If I'm making the unilateraldecision in that situation,
regardless of whether it'sStephen Adams or LeBron James,
I'm like, listen, it's acompletely unnecessary flail.
I understand you're trying todraw a foul, but you do kick the
person in the nuts.
That is a flail.
Do kick the person in the nuts.
That is a flagrant and I wouldaward that after, like as a
member of the league in Scranton, after the game.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
But see, it sounds like it's subjective though,
because again he ain't get aflagrant.
Hell, I would have givenDraymond a flagrant.
I like one of my favoritecharacters is Wednesday.
I'd like to protect the Addamsfamily.
You know what I'm saying.
Like one of my favoritecharacters is Wednesday.
I'd like to protect the Adamsfamily.
You know what I'm saying.
Like I would have issued aflagrant then and it seemed like
that moment was more so.
Oh, we're going to issue aflagrant now because we missed
(10:14):
that call.
Which kind of when we weretalking kind of off air, we were
talking about missed calls,right, like how did you deal
with the missed call?
Well, I think it's subjective.
You can be fair, you can beunfair, but I do wish that
referees would look at the gamefrom a context basis and say,
okay, this could be a littlenastier than what it normally
(10:37):
might be.
For example, we're going toswitch to the WNBA.
You know what I'm saying.
Y'all see the jersey.
Y'all already knew we was goingto get a little controversial.
Angel Reese and Kaitlyn Clarkthey both got a flagrant foul
against one another and I wouldventure to say that Kaitlyn's
might've seen more reckless, butAngel, she got a flagrant foul
and she's swatting footballright.
(10:58):
In my estimation, that happensa lot of times and you can
easily get hit in the back ofthe head.
I don't think hers wasmalicious, and there were other
people in the play tooafterwards as well, so she ends
up falling.
It gets called a flagrant.
I don't have an issue with it,but other people did.
What would be your thoughts onthat sort of situation?
Speaker 1 (11:21):
So when a player gets thrown out of the ground, you
have to and and you know you'regoing to call or you're leaning
towards calling something.
Uh, that is not a a standardpersonal foul.
The first thing you have to dois look at it from.
Was this person?
Was the contact what we're,what we have an issue?
(11:42):
Was this during live or deadball play?
Was this sort of a basketballplay that was reckless or
unnecessary?
Or was this just sort of ashove that is immaterial to the
game of basketball, wherethey're no longer playing
basketball, they're just tryingto get into a conflict In that
situation?
From what I remember, it wassort of a reckless, overzealous
(12:09):
rebounding effort, we'll say, ifI remember correctly, or some
off-ball action.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
You're talking about with Angel and Caitlin?
Yeah, caitlin is going.
The play I was talking aboutwas she was going up for the
layup and Angel's swatting toblock it.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Okay, okay, yeah, and she hits Caitlin in the back of
the head.
So this is a basketball actionthat you would decide whether
it's a flagrant or a normalcommon foul.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
What would make it a normal common foul if you get
hit in the head Because again,it's a blow to the head.
That's my thing with Draymondand Braun.
You got hit in the head Becauseagain, it's a blow to the head.
That's my thing with Draymondand Braun.
You got hit in the head so itcould be deemed a flagrant.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Contact to the head and neck is a major indicator of
a flagrant foul.
One of the big things we'regoing to be looking at as a
referee to determine whetherit's a flagrant or a common foul
, is whether there's windup.
Windup would be a big thing,especially when you're looking
to block.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
How much of a windup?
Because, again, if I'm jumpingand like this, like my wing, I
got a 6'6 wingspan, ladies andgentlemen.
So I'm swatting, I'm turn eightand this ain't even a windup,
but this jump look wide as hell.
So it was like is this aflagrant?
Speaker 1 (13:19):
So if a player is not , this is up to the referee's
judgment at the end of the day.
But what do they teach you guys?
What do they teach you?
So what they teach us isessentially, if they're going
for a big block like DwightHoward style, this is a windup
and you might not be trying tohit the person in the head,
right, but you have to be verycareful when you do that.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
So it has to be.
The hand or any part of yourbody cannot hit that person in
the head.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
Yeah, again, it's trying to tackle reckless
behavior that can result inthings like concussions, Because
the number one thing you don'twant to have happen is we
understand now how severeconcussions can be, so you want
to try to dissuade players frombehaviors that can lead to that
as much as possible, Right?
(14:07):
So yeah, it can be completelyinadvertent where you wind up,
you go for the block and you hitsomebody in the head.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
That would be issued a flagrant.
So what happens?
And I'm not, trying todiscredit this man's block at
all, because it's a good block.
Shout out JR Smith too.
But Ron's block, chase down,block right.
What happens if he hits theball but, like his elbow, hits
like iggy in the head, but it'sif he did it because he jumped
higher than he shut up.
Again to jr smith, like I.
(14:38):
Is that a?
Speaker 1 (14:38):
flagrant foul.
So in that situation um,because it's on the play, you
get away with a lot more contact.
You can block a shot and thenget called for a shooting foul.
That can happen.
But you get away with a lotmore contact when you get the
ball first and in that situation, if the arm if I remember
(15:01):
LeBron is sort of here and whenhe blocks the ball, if he blocks
the ball and then grazes Iggyon the head, we would not refer
to that as a free throw.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
I didn't say graze, but I said hit Like hit.
Yeah, if you can elbow to thehead.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
I think that's still going to suck for Iggy.
So it's a double whammy forIggy.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Yeah, and that's one of those.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
So it would be one of those situations where is is
the contact unnecessary?
No, is the contact excessive?
No, then we would say no, youknow, there's no foul, um, or
there's no flavor and foul inthat situation and there has to
be a foul also to call aflagrant Um.
So in that case, I have seenplays where, uh, a player in the
(15:46):
NBA, especially if you block ashot.
I've almost never seen a play Idon't remember the last time I
saw a play in the NBA wheresomebody got called for a foul
after a block.
Anyway, again, that can happen.
And I've seen plays where itprobably should have, but I've
not seen it called.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
I was looking, I wanted to see a foul called
after a block, like how doesthat work?
I was going to say I waslooking, I wanted to see if that
called after a block, like howdoes that work?
Speaker 1 (16:07):
I was actually going back and watching the 08 finals.
I think there was one.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
I forget who on who but I believe there's that
sounds vicious.
If it weren't for my team, thatsounds vicious.
My boys was in that day.
But okay, referee, before weclose up, as a referee, are you
guys taught to pay attention toroot cause?
Because, again, I look atflagrants and technicals as like
(16:37):
, if a flagrant is issued, it'sdeemed more, it's worse Because
it's deemed as a physicalcontact as opposed to a
technical to be taunting.
You're just talking so you canget a technical, but flagrant
involves physicality.
It's deemed as excessive,unnecessary.
Does root cause factor in atall for you guys?
Or do y'all just go by the bookand just say, hey, if it hits
this definition, call space fade.
Speaker 1 (16:59):
So what's important is that we don't have, we don't
get to rewrite the rules.
That's not our position.
That's for whoever's in chargeof the competition committee,
the NBA, it's the owners and thecoaches who are part of that
committee.
So we have to referee by thebook.
However, there is some leeway.
(17:20):
There are occasions where we canlook at, for example, a player
who initiates contact and causesa legal defender in legal
defense position to becomeillegal as a result of the
contact by the offensive player.
In those instances we aretaught as referees to if the
defender is basically doing allthat he can to be in legal
(17:43):
guarding position.
We're taught to referee thedefense.
If the defender hasn't doneanything wrong.
We're not.
We should not call a foul.
There are still times where,because some referees are really
looking for those arms and thatthe angle that they're at, that
they might erroneously call afoul and I think players would
have a valid complaint.
But, um, believe me, I've beenhit with with that foul as a
(18:06):
player myself, where I've gottenmy arm comes down inadvertently
.
But as a referee, it's myopinion that we would be in
error to penalize the defensefor what an offensive player
does.
But in terms of technicals,unsportsmanlike behavior,
flagrance, everybody can get it,everybody can catch one, but
(18:29):
all right so I'm, I'm, I'm withyou.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
Everybody can catch, can catch these technicals,
right, you can catch these t'sand f's, I guess.
But if someone is viewed as avictim for me I don't want to
give them the okay, I guess,quote, unquote, worst call which
I look at it like that, right,you don't look at a flagrant
technical as worse other peoplelike I asked one of my friends,
(18:53):
he said not necessarily, butagain, like I'm looking at
because you're saying, oh, likeit's a physical reason why you
got issued this one, not notjust a verbal, like sticks and
stones may break my bones, butwords, but words may never hurt
me.
Like, so taunting is worse thanphysical.
So that's why I say flavormight be viewed as as worse than
technical.
But I don't know, I, I, I, I, Ihate the fact that the victim
(19:17):
gets worse, at least in my eyes.
The worst treatment if they gotboth in using brawn and dream on
it and incident, but they bothwere issued a technical or
personal file and that's it Cool, like I.
Or or flagrants, cool, butbecause it got issued, I
upgraded to a flagrant.
(19:37):
The perception of it looked bad, especially when the root cause
was broad in that scenario,cause if you flip it.
I do wonder if they do the samething the same way.
Speaker 1 (19:52):
Um, again, I do wonder if they do the same thing
the same way Again.
That's one of those where weprobably won't know, although
it's still possible.
Lebron and Draymond are stillplaying but we probably will
never know.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
We'll never know, because that's prime LeBron and
prime Draymond Right.
You know what I'm saying.
We won't know what thatDraymond Right.
So, like you know what I'msaying, like that's like we
won't know what that would looklike, right, and I would bet my
life savings and everything thatyou love on.
Why is it everything I love andeverything I love too, that
(20:24):
they would treat it differently?
You can't do that stuff.
I'm just saying I'm thatconfident you wouldn't lose
nothing.
That's just what I'm saying, butI'm definitely curious what
other people think about as welltoo.
But again, this was a very Idon't want to say heated
argument, but it was an argumenton the last day at one point in
(20:44):
time.
But I also thought too, it wasa great talking point as well,
because referees and playersthey view things, they view the
games differently.
Like I know, players want thereferees to be more root cause
oriented, and maybe you guys aretaught A focus on what is
actually occurring.
So I mean, I do get that aswell too.
But, nick, I mean you gotanything you want to say before
(21:06):
we close up Shaka?
Speaker 1 (21:09):
I think that about does it.
Yeah, I mean, refereeing isdifficult.
Go out there and referee a gameif you want, and you'll find
out it's not easy.
We don't get the slow motionreplays that you see on the
broadcast from the perfect angle.
We get one shot at it.
It's going 20 miles an hour andit's difficult.
We're going to make mistakesand at the end of the day, we
(21:30):
don't cause you to miss all yourchoke shots.
We're not like very rarely arewe going to cause you to lose a
game.
So be kind.
Most of them are doing it fornot great pay, if any.
So be kind to your fellowreferees and they might give you
a little bit more grace.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
You never know.
You know what?
Because that actually remindsme of what.
It's another episode that, Iguess, but we'll talk about when
Kelsey Plum and Angel Reese andall of them were talking about
the wrestling and saying howthey are costing them games.
We'll talk more about thatanother time.
But yeah, it is.
It's interesting.
Being a ref, I'll admit that itwas fun.
(22:06):
I don't know if I would keepdoing it, but maybe I'll try to
do one game recorded-wise, justto see how it is and give a
little content that way.
But, nick, I greatly appreciateyour time and effort, per usual
.
You'll be back on the showagain, don't worry, and I'm
surprised we actually didn'ttalk stats today, so we may
change that next time.
But until next time, ladies andgentlemen, I greatly appreciate
y'all for listening.
(22:27):
Definitely stay tuned.
And again, this is Nick, myname is Trey.
I'm the host of Get a Bucket.
Please make sure to like,subscribe, comment, tell anyone
about the show.
Hope y'all have a good one.
Speaker 1 (22:38):
Take care.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.