Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tomegun
Jeffpea, have you ever played the game? I don't mean that as an insult. I have been doing some other things since watching the game, but if I remember correctly the ball was knocked away from Hansborough and shot past Henderson. I have been in that situation before and many times the reaction is to at least look at the ball. Henderson was focused only on making contact with Hansborough. Additionally, I don't think I have ever made an attempt to block a shot by coming across with a forearm. Most of the time, the arm will be somewhat extended when a player is trying to block a shot. Finally, just because it is a combative act doesn't mean Henderson was trying to kill or mame Hansborough. It just means that one play was ruled a combative act and Henderson was penalized. Looking at the replay can support this call and that will be good enough to validate what they decided. With all their skill, years of experience and use of the monitor, do you really think they made this decision without thinking about the consequences?
|
I'm not sure how to quote specific sections of your comments and respond accordingly, so I'll just respond in the order listed above:
- I have played the game up to the college level (although I don't really think the level matters), although I must admit that I was not a prolific shot-blocker (since I was a 5'10" PG).
- You're right about the instinctive reaction to visually follow the ball when you're in mid-air. The point that everyone is missing is that once airborne, Henderson received contact from Hansborough that knocked Henderson off-balance and caused him to instinctively begin to protect himself (for fearing of landing on something other than his feet first). At that point, it looked to me like he brought his focus and his arms/hands downward (he was no longer following the ball). He was attempting to protect himself, thus the downward arm movement that ultimately hit Hansborough in the face. The fact that his hand was open makes me further believe it was not intentional contact. You can certainly argue that severity of the contact alone will mean making the decision
- I absolutely hope the officials made their decision WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES. I want them to make their decision based on the video "evidence". They should NOT include the "if we toss him, he'll miss their next game which is the ACC tournament opener - so let's not do that" argument...That type of thought process is what a lot of us don't like about the NBA.
Anyway, I appreciate your respectful approach to the discussion...
