To the average fan, there seems to be little rhyme or reason to the way in which the league -- from the referees to chief policeman Rod Thorn -- metes out punishment.
For instance, Michael Jordan bounced a ball off the head of guard Mark Jackson in one spirited Bulls-Pacers encounter. A flagrant, right? No, just a technical. Pacers fans naturally screamed that Jordan should have been ejected, and would have been ejected, if he weren't Jordan.A few weeks ago, the Jazz were playing the Lakers when, after a whistle had already blown, L.A. forward Dennis Rodman grabbed Utah's Karl Malone by the hips and threw Malone to the floor. No technical, no flagrant.
And then there was the incident where L.A.'s Shaquille O'Neal dunked on the Knicks, then shoved New York center Chris Dudley to the floor. Dudley got up and fired the ball at Shaq's back. Dudley was ejected; O'Neal received a technical but played on.
On the surface, these seem to be clear-cut examples of the way in which the league arbitrarily dishes out punishment.
But after talking with Thorn, the NBA's senior vice president for basketball operations, it's obvious there is rhyme to the way they operate, although the reason is still debatable.
What it essentially comes down to is this: Referees make the call on the court, based on certain somewhat subjective guidelines. Thorn later reviews videotape and, based on the same guidelines, can either sustain the refs' call or change it.
There are two kinds of flagrant fouls -- a flagrant 1, which is "unnecessary contact," and a flagrant 2, which is "unnecessary and excessive contact."
You don't have to be a linguist to recognize the problem here. What is unnecessary contact? What is excessive contact? When Karl Malone popped Othella Harrington a couple weeks ago, he probably thought it was very necessary to get the Rockets thug to let go of his wrist. But Malone was assessed a flagrant and later suspended. Why? Because he threw a punch, and throwing a punch -- whether it connects or not -- is an automatic suspension.
Make a fist, take a day off.
What it comes down to is that the league has a history of cases -- precedents, to use the legal term -- that they use in determining what is flagrant. Thorn points out that he has been doing this for 13 years, and by now he has a pretty good idea what constitutes a flagrant foul.
And despite the perception players have of him as a tough judge -- and he is, ultimately, judge and jury -- Thorn takes a lenient view of most incidents.
For instance, in the Jordan instance mentioned above, Thorn thinks that should have been just a technical, even though most people probably would argue that bouncing a ball off someone's bean is about as unnecessary as you can get.
In the Shaq-Dudley affair, Thorn thinks both should have received just technicals.
In the Rodman-Malone incident, Thorn thinks Rodman should have been assessed a flagrant 1, since the body-slam occurred after the whistle had blown and was clearly unnecessary.
It's obvious, then, that the referees overreacted in the first two examples mentioned above. But Thorn said he'd rather have his officials err on the side of law enforcement while in the heat of battle.
"What we tell the referees is, if there's any question in your mind, call a flagrant," he said, adding that he can make a final determination later.
And every rough incident comes to the attention of the league office, one way or another, Thorn believes. For one thing, someone watches every league game -- either a member of Thorn's staff, or of supervisor of officials Ed Rush's staff. Occasionally they get suggestions to scrutinize a specific play from other sources, as well.
If the officials entirely miss a play, as in the case of Shaq's push of Dudley or Rodman's throw-down of Malone, Thorn can choose to levy a flagrant after the fact.
When he does that, the points (1 or 2) for the flagrant foul are added to the culprit's season total. When a player earns six points in a season (five this shortened season), he gets suspended. That's why, a couple seasons ago, Rodman got suspended after a flagrant foul that seemed far less severe than some of his other fouls. It was a cumulative thing; he'd reached the magic five-point mark.
Thorn said he does consider context in the case of hard and flagrant fouls. For instance, if Malone cuffs Harrington, Thorn goes back and looks through the entire game film for anything that might have prompted the Mailman's action. If he finds something worth punishing in Harrington's behavior, he can award him a flagrant foul.
The only time he doesn't consider context is when a punch is thrown. That has no defense.
"I don't care if it's in retaliation or if you started it," Thorn stated.
As for the officials, well, if they muff a call, they hear about it. They have their own self-evaluative process, Thorn points out, which includes taping every game they work and reviewing it, frequently back at the hotel after a game. And when they miss a call entirely, Thorn lets them know.
"We don't want excessively rough play," he stressed. "We don't want any part of it."