... and I concur with that decision.

I was just making the point that some people (mostly from the media) are incorrectly stating that he was hit in the face with an elbow and that was not the case.

Thats not a foul in the _____________ ;)

.....wait for it.......

:D

100% correct.

do you want to talk about basketball, or do you want to discuss something else?

So I'm the idiot for having an opinion on the play in question and using visual facts seen during the game to base my decision on? Take your personal attacks and insults to facebook.com....if you want to discuss the play and resulting ruling by the game officials, then I'm game....otherwise.....facebook.com is where you should submit your future posts.

Haven't you ever read the pertinent NCAA rules? They're posted above already in this thread if you'd like to give 'em a try.

AR5 says "strikes an opponent with the <b>hands</b>...."

NCAA rule 4-23-6 says "an individual strikes an opponent with the <b>hand</b>..."

In both cases, the act can be deemed flagrant.

Having a "closed fist" isn't a prerequisite to have a flagrant foul.

Per the stats, they officials did not call the initial foul on #51 Steve Johnson (although based on the replays and whistles - that's who I thought was charged with the foul...and should have been). Instead, they just charged the foul to Henderson. I stand corrected.......

That does not change my opinion of the play, it was not an intentional, "combative" action by Henderson.

By the way, I have no interest in this game at all; didn't care who won or lost (and still don't). Just expressing my opinion, as an official, on this officiating discussion forum....until I recently found out that BktBallRef and Dan_Ref have decided I'm an idiot standing outside a McDonald's....:)

I do not understand why people have to disagree and start name calling over a judgment. I know when I first saw it, I was not sure. I can only imagine what I would have called at full speed. The kid should not have been in the game anyway. It was over.

Peace

Ooooooooo! Baby bear needs a nap!! It was a joke, hence the :rolleyes:.

I discussed the play, I pointed out the flaws in your argument, and I pointed out that you were wrong about the foul.

Now, do you want to discuss the play and resulting ruling by the game officials, or do you want to pout? http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/grumble.gif

Let's just discuss what you consider a 'combative act'.

You need to read the NCAA rule book. The word "intentional" does not appear in rule 4-23 Fighting. it makes no difference whether it was "intentional" or not.

Jumping at an opponent and swinging your arm in a punching manner and connecting with the forearm/elbow is definitely combative. Think goodness the correct men were working the game and not you.

When I first saw the incident I thought, flagrent YES, just look at the blood ect. But when I saw the replay over and over and over I began to think what the officials finnaly called. I think however this was just because I saw it over and over that I changed my mind, not because of anything diffrent I saw during the replays, thus I would prob have called it flagrent, but a combative act, probably not, however I can understand how those guys called it and well they are working D1 and are much better officials then me so on a close play like this I have to trust them.

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?

That sums it up right there. Three experienced officials with the added benefit of being able to use replay.