The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

View Poll Results: Was it intentional
Yes 46 74.19%
No 16 25.81%
Voters: 62. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 08:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
I don't think three experienced NCAA officials are going to kick a Duke player out of a Carolina-Duke game unless they are 100% sure they are correct and are 100% sure the conference is going to back them up.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 08:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomegun
Let me put up a big

Those three officials were part of the group I had in the other thread. Yes, I think it was the right call. I think Hansborough showed a lot of restraint because he didn't really say anything although he was pissed.
LOL my thoughts exactly. Crews don't get much better than that.

Good call IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 09:00pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 22,934
I Agree !!!

From JRutledge: "I do not understand why people have to disagree and start name calling over a judgment."

JRutledge: I agree 100%. I'm relatively new to this Forum, so maybe I'm expecting too much from it. I would like to view this website as a place where basketball officials can professionally discuss and debate rules, plays, and interpretations, occassionally allowing some players, coaches, and fans to join in and participate. I find myself spending about 10% to 20% of my time on this Forum viewing personal attacks and name calling, which is, in my opinion, just a waste of my time. But, as I said, maybe I'm expecting too much from this Forum?
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 09:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
Ooooooooo! Baby bear needs a nap!! It was a joke, hence the .

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?
Actually, your previous response to me began like this: "Excuse me but are you clueless or are you a Duke fan?" ....So let me see what has taken place here....our opinions differ and you responded directly to me by trying to insert a poor joke about someone else and then (instead of saying you weren't trying to offend me, but make a joke that didn't work) further dig yourself deeper in a hole by your quoted response above? I guess I'll have to treat you like a coach who complains about every call/no call against his team...I'll just "tune you out" because you have lost any credibility you had with me.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 09:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 1,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
Ooooooooo! Baby bear needs a nap!! It was a joke, hence the .

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?
Tony,

Gotta disagree.

You popped off for no good reason. Your tone was aggressive, demeaning, and inflammatory.

The best officials admit when they're wrong.
__________________
HOMER: Just gimme my gun.
CLERK: Hold on, the law requires a five-day waiting period; we've got run a background check...
HOMER: Five days???? But I'm mad NOW!!
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 09:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
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 hands...."

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

In both cases, the act can be deemed flagrant.

Having a "closed fist" isn't a prerequisite to have a flagrant foul.
You're correct, a closed fist is not a prerequisite for a flagrant foul. My interpretation of the replays is that Henderson went to block the shot, received contact in the lower body that knock him off balance and caused him to react by bring his attention, arms, hands, etc. downward to protect himself. The fact that his hand was "open" leads me to believe there was no intent to hit the UNC player in the face. I have NEVER said "he had intent to harm/injure, but because of the open hand you can't call it a combative action"...my opinion is that there was no intent/combatitive action and the open hand is one of the facts that I use to form my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 09:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 143
I missed the game. Anybody got a link for the video of what happened?

Thanks!
__________________
MajorCord
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 09:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,994
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 10:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckrefguy
Tony,

Gotta disagree.

You popped off for no good reason. Your tone was aggressive, demeaning, and inflammatory.

The best officials admit when they're wrong.
Ya know what? I'm a Carolina fan. I make jokes about Duke all the time. Sorry the joke was lost on your and your buddy but quite honestly, I'll get over it.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 10:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffpea
...my opinion is that there was no intent/combatitive action and the open hand is one of the facts that I use to form my opinion.
And once again you are wrong. Intent and combative are NOT the same thing. Intent is NOT required.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 10:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_ref
Let's just discuss what you consider a 'combative act'.
That's certainly a good question and something that makes a lot more sense seeing that this is a basketball forum and not law school forum talking about the legal nuances of self-defense while standing outside a McDonald's.

Can we first agree that it is much easier to determine intent and what is combative action when there is no other action involved? (i.e. a play on the ball - attempted strip, block shot, etc)

In general, I would say that blows that come from hands (open fist or not), forearms, elbows, knees, legs, or feet that outwardly strike an opponent, who is in a vulnerable position, in a manner that is deemed to cause harm or injury can be considered "combative". This is not an exhaustive or specific list (note I did not list a head-butting action - although that should clearly be construed as combative) of instances.

This is certainly a determination that is subjective - like the vast majority of fouls/violations in basketball. Just because A1's hand hits B1's face does not make it a combative action (think about how many times an official stops play for an apparent injury because he ruled the contact inadvertant).

Simply put, we'd both have to look at lots of plays/situations to determine if combative action took place. It's difficult to provide an all-inclusive list of actions that must be strictly adhered to. Hope that helps and or at least makes a little sense.....
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 10:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 1,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
Ya know what? I'm a Carolina fan. I make jokes about Duke all the time. Sorry the joke was lost on your and your buddy but quite honestly, I'll get over it.
Excuse me, are you clueless or are you an American? I guess that's an oxymoron.

Hmmm - guess you're right. The "joke" is lost on me.
__________________
HOMER: Just gimme my gun.
CLERK: Hold on, the law requires a five-day waiting period; we've got run a background check...
HOMER: Five days???? But I'm mad NOW!!
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 10:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Oh well...I'm sure you'll get over it, too.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 10:27pm
sj sj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 360
Right call. They had one look in real time so that's what they had to go on. I certainly don't know what all their conversation was but even if they weren't sure it was intentional/flagrant or not they erred on the side of caution so to speak and kicked him out. I can only imagine what it would be like in the press if they hadn't ejected him. I thought they did a good job of slowing everything down, discussing it among themselves and then talking to both coaches. It looked extremely professional. I know I learned something watching it.

I was waiting for Packer to say something about how the refs "let it get to this point and it was inevitable that somebody was gonna get hurt out there." He didn't although he's still an idiot.

Last edited by sj; Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 10:32pm.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 10:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 547
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...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who is working the Duke / UNC game? rgncjn Basketball 84 Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:29am
Brawl in the BC/Duke game JugglingReferee Basketball 38 Tue Mar 14, 2006 05:20pm
Duke - UConn women's game oatmealqueen Basketball 6 Sun Jan 04, 2004 08:25am
Duke/UTT Game CK Basketball 9 Wed Apr 02, 2003 01:14pm
Duke game last night Zebra1 Basketball 8 Tue Mar 25, 2003 06:29pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:46pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1