The most controversial moment in the Denver Nuggets’ 122–109 win over the Los Angeles Clippers on Friday didn’t come from a made shot. It came from an airball.
Late in the game, Tim Hardaway Jr. launched a three that missed everything and sailed out of bounds, but the play didn’t end there. As he came down, Hardaway landed awkwardly on Jordan Miller’s foot near the sideline, a jarring step that immediately drew attention on replay. Officials stopped play and went to the monitor to review the sequence for a potential “hostile act,” a category the NBA uses to trigger replay review for actions that may rise to the level of flagrant/unsportsmanlike conduct.
The review is where the temperature rose. No foul had been called live, yet after the stoppage, the sequence ultimately resulted in Hardaway being awarded three free throws, without a flagrant being assessed. Clips of the exchange captured Clippers coach Tyronn Lue in disbelief that officials initiated a flagrant-style review despite having made no whistle on the play in real time.
Tim Hardaway Jr. airballs the 3-point shot out of bounds and lands on Jordan Miller’s foot (with replays).
The referees call a replay review to check for a ‘hostile act’ and end up giving 3 free throws (no flagrant).
Ty Lue cannot understand how they can review for a flagrant… pic.twitter.com/T4IbamqlC6
— MrBuckBuck (@MrBuckBuckNBA) January 31, 2026
That disconnect, “no call” to “three shots”, is exactly why it detonated online and on broadcasts. Many viewers argued the contact looked like a classic “landing space” situation that should have simply been called immediately (or not at all), not adjudicated through a hostile-act lens. Others took issue with the process: if replay is triggered to evaluate potential flagrant/hostile conduct, should officials be able to come out of that review with a newly assessed common shooting foul and free throws when nothing was called initially?
The NBA’s own replay framework helps explain how a review can start without a whistle. The league’s replay guidance explicitly allows officials to use instant replay for flagrant/altercation-type situations, and the definition of “hostile act” has been expanded in recent years specifically to create a replay trigger. A recent NBA pool report from an unrelated game also noted that a review can be initiated “to see if a hostile act occurred” even absent a foul call on the floor, essentially confirming that the “we didn’t call anything, but we’re reviewing anyway” part is permitted under NBA procedure.
What remains murkier, and what fueled the controversy Friday, is the optics and logic of the end result. The officials didn’t deem the action flagrant, yet the stoppage still produced three free throws, a swing that felt to the Clippers like replay creating punishment out of a play that the crew initially judged unworthy of a whistle. In a game where Denver shot 32 free throws to the Clippers’ 21, any sudden three-shot sequence was always going to be gasoline.
