UNC/Duke Game

[BBall_Junkie]

First of all I am a Duke Fan.

Second, if you look at this play objectively and as a refereee, I don't see how you can say that this play did not warrant an ejection. His legs were not being taken out from underneath him. This was a dangerous/ non-basketball play.

Unfortunately he now has to sit, but thems are the rules.

[tnzebra]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes.

I think he purposely tried to hit him. He might not have wanted to him as hard, but I think he knew what he was doing.

Billy Packer is a complete and total idiot.

Peace

Agreed. A hit like that in the NBA would get you a 10 game suspension. Crew was right on top of it. ACC should consider longer suspension....

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Actually, that is an incorrect statement. BktBallRef provided the two different flagrant foul references that could have been called on this play in post #7. One call carries a one game suspension. The other does not. Yet both are flagrant fouls and the player is DQ'd from that game. Please go back and reread that post.

Nevadaref, I respect your comments. My post was quoting and responding to Tomegun's post (#29 back on pg #2), not BktBallRef. I've decided to similar ignore his comments based on previous posts.......

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Say what? Hansborough caused the contact? He was just protecting himself? What next? Are you're going to say that the foul shoulda been called on Hansborough for hitting Henderson in the hand with his nose?

I'm going to assume that you are half-joking with your last question, so I won't waste anyones time asking you to stop with the sense-less exaggerations.....

For once, Billy Packer was right in one of his on-air statements (I must say that's hard for me to admit since I use the mute button often when he's talking...). Prior to Henderson hitting Hansborough, his whole body reacted to the contact that occurred between the players - not just his arms. My opinion, that I have stated earlier, is that the contact - though hard - was NOT of a combative nature and not intentional. I base my opinion on the video evidence which shows the contact between players (#51 Duke, Hansborough, and Henderson) that changed Henderson's motions from attempted shot block to instinctive reaction to prevent potential injury.

It is clear that others disagree...and that is fine with me. This is one of the many areas in officiating where there is no "black and white" - simply lots of grey.

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

It is clear that others disagree...and that is fine with me. This is one of the many areas in officiating where there is no "black and white" - simply lots of grey.

In this case, lots of RED. As much as I dislike both teams, I give Hansborough a thumbs up for reacting the way that he did.

[JRutledge]

Hansborough broke his nose on this play.

Peace

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by JoeTheRef

In this case, lots of RED. As much as I dislike both teams, I give Hansborough a thumbs up for reacting the way that he did.

The only reason Hansborough didn't turn this into a brawl is because by the time he got up off the floor, there was already an official and a teammate with their hands on him to make sure it didn't turn even more ugly.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

ACC commissioner John Swofford said Monday he was satisfied with how officials reacted Sunday. Swofford said the ACC took another look at the play Monday.

"I am satisfied with it. It's unfortunate the way the incident happened. The officials handled it well. The other players and the two coaches handled it well once the incident happened. One of the worst things that could happen is for that to set up something bigger. They all handled everything well and I'm supportive of the actions taken by the game officials."

[Adam]

Too bad for coach crewshawooski. I'm sure he was positive the ACC would reverse the on-court ruling.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

To his credit, coach crewshawooski has changed his tune a little bit since yesterday saying in the weekly coaches teleconference that they would not appeal the suspension.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Too bad for coach crewshawooski. I'm sure he was positive the ACC would reverse the on-court ruling.

Actually, the ACC doesn't have the power to reverse the officials ruling. They have no choice in the matter. It's automatic under NCAA rules.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Actually, the ACC doesn't have the power to reverse the officials ruling. They have no choice in the matter. It's automatic under NCAA rules.

I know, but from hearing his comments on ESPN Radio this morning, he seemed hopeful that the suspension would be lifted.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by ibumgardner

2. After watching it a couple of times, it appears that Les Jones' whistle blew on the first foul (on #51 for Duke), then there was the situation with Henderson. I probably would have done the same thing that they did (ignore the foul on #51). Does this fall under the false multiple foul? So, if they had called both fouls (common and flagrant) how would they have been administered?

Well, we'll never know if the L was going to call a foul on #51 unless he decides to give an interview about the game.

I did, however, see the play as a foul by 51 followed by the shot to the nose by Henderson. Had the officials chosen to penalize both sets of contact, we would have had a personal foul on #51, followed by a flagrant TECHNICAL on Henderson.

In the game itself, the foul on Henderson was a flagrant personal foul. Based on the statement that the referees put out after the game, I have to assume that it was a flagrant personal foul for fighting - which is why they were able to make the call after going to the monitor.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Too bad for coach crewshawooski. I'm sure he was positive the ACC would reverse the on-court ruling.

To back up what Tony wrote:

NCAA Rule 10
Section 19. Suspensions for Fighting
Art. 1. Any member or team personnel who participates in a fight
(regardless of whether he or she is a player at the time) shall be assessed a
flagrant technical foul. No free throws shall be attempted by either team
when there are double flagrant fouls that are offsetting.
Art. 2. The first time an individual participates in a fight during the season
(including exhibition games), the individual shall be suspended from
participating in the team’s next regular-season game (not an exhibition
contest), including tournament competition.
Art. 3. When an individual participates in a second fight, that individual
shall be suspended for the remainder of the season, including tournament
competition.
Art. 8. After a game, conference offices or the assigning authority may
correct an error in who was involved in a fight but cannot change an
official’s ruling that a fight took place or lessen the severity of the penalty. The conference office or assigning authority may make those penalties more severe.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

I'm going to assume that you are half-joking with your last question, so I won't waste anyones time asking you to stop with the sense-less exaggerations.....

Senseless exaggerations? You mean like saying that someone who got smacked in the face initiated the contact? And that someone who smacked another player in the face, breaking his nose, was just protecting himself?

Those statements aren't exaggerations. They're just plain senseless.