UNC/Duke Game

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The NCAA rule book address two different situations:

Scenario #1
A.R. 5.
Player A1 falls to the playing floor and is (a) bleeding or (b) doubled over in pain, holding his/her abdomen. Is the official permitted to use the monitor to determine if the conditions were a result of a fight? RULING: It is permissible for the official to use the monitor to determine if a fight occurred and who participated. In using the monitor, when the official ascertains that an opponent struck a player with the arms (elbows), hands, legs or feet, and if he/she concludes that the act was combative and flagrant, he/she shall deem it a fight. Consequently, the player shall be ejected and the fighting penalty invoked.

1. From the replays that I have seen the contact appears to be with the forearm, not the elbow.
2. According to the TV announcers, the official on the court was overheard reporting to the scorer that the act was deemed combative.

[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.

Who voted no?

[jeffpea]

Here's a question for everyone....when was the last time you seen anyone throw an elbow/forearm/"punch"/etc. with an OPEN hand? That's what happened here. It doesn't happen because pre-meditated actions of that nature include the "closed fist" (whether striking with the forearm or elbow). Additionally, did you see Hendersons' body react to the contact that he received near/on his legs? That's what prompted him to bring BOTH of his arms immediately downward to protect himself from injury when hitting the floor. The contact made him think he was being undercut and open to injury.

IMHO, he did not intentionally strike Tyler in the face with "combative" intent. It was certainly excessive and during a dead ball (after the foul was initially called), therefore I think a Flagrant Technical foul should have been assessed w/ the corresponding penalty. Deeming the foul to have been "combative" was not correct in my estimation.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

Here's a question for everyone....when was the last time you seen anyone throw an elbow/forearm/"punch"/etc. with an OPEN hand? That's what happened here. It doesn't happen because pre-meditated actions of that nature include the "closed fist" (whether striking with the forearm or elbow). Additionally, did you see Hendersons' body react to the contact that he received near/on his legs? That's what prompted him to bring BOTH of his arms immediately downward to protect himself from injury when hitting the floor. The contact made him think he was being undercut and open to injury.

IMHO, he did not intentionally strike Tyler in the face with "combative" intent. It was certainly excessive and during a dead ball (after the foul was initially called), therefore I think a Flagrant Technical foul should have been assessed w/ the corresponding penalty. Deeming the foul to have been "combative" was not correct in my estimation.

So if you're standing on line at McDonalds and someone slaps you across the face with open hand you do not consider that a 'combative' act?

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

So if you're standing on line at McDonalds and someone slaps you across the face with open hand you do not consider that a 'combative' act?

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

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

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

[jeffpea]

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.....

[BktBallRef]

Excuse me but are you clueless or are you a Duke fan? I guess that's an oxymoron.

Originally Posted by jeffpea

Here's a question for everyone....when was the last time you seen anyone throw an elbow/forearm/"punch"/etc. with an OPEN hand? That's what happened here. It doesn't happen because pre-meditated actions of that nature include the "closed fist" (whether striking with the forearm or elbow). Additionally, did you see Hendersons' body react to the contact that he received near/on his legs? That's what prompted him to bring BOTH of his arms immediately downward to protect himself from injury when hitting the floor. The contact made him think he was being undercut and open to injury.

Taking a swing at someone does not require that the fist be closed. A fist is NOT required for the act to be considered combative.

IMHO, he did not intentionally strike Tyler in the face with "combative" intent. It was certainly excessive and during a dead ball (after the foul was initially called), therefore I think a Flagrant Technical foul should have been assessed w/ the corresponding penalty. Deeming the foul to have been "combative" was not correct in my estimation.

The only foul that occurred was the flagrant PERSONAL foul by Henderson. There was no other foul on the play.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

The only foul that occurred was the flagrant PERSONAL foul by Henderson. There was no other foul on the play.

100% correct.

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Excuse me but are you clueless or are you a Duke fan? I guess that's an oxymoron.



Taking a swing at someone does not require that the fist be closed. A fist is NOT required for the act to be considered combative.



The only foul that occurred was the flagrant PERSONAL foul by Henderson. There was no other foul on the play.

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.

[jeffpea]

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....

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

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

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

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.

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?

[jeffpea]

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.