Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="pfister1, post: 1569558, member: 285"] I was a little bit confused by Bilas' analysis of the foul on Richardson. He seemed to be on the fence as to whether it should have been called a flagrant one foul? It seems to me that that was the exact play that the rule in in place to address. He may not have intended the result and he may have been trying to make a play on the ball, but he essentially drove through Richardson to try to make that play on the ball. Seemed to me to be a perfect example of excessive contact and a great example for trying to defined the difference between flagrant one and flagrant two. [/QUOTE]