UNC/Duke Game

[NewNCref]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

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.

So, if i'm reading this right, then Henderson should have been given a flagrant technical foul? But the box score says no Ts were given. Any ideas?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

That's becasue like most coaches, he doesn't know the rules. But, you already knew that, too.

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

So in a situation were people are expressing their opinions about a play that none of us where involved in, none of us know the exact details of what discussions took place, and none of us had to ultimately make a decision that is subject to review by millions of others.....why is it that some posters feel that not only are they right, but anyone who disagrees with them are clueless, make senseless statements, or a "baby who needs to take a nap"?

The best officiating crews are ones in which the three calmest people in the arena are the game officials. It seems that several posters in here get pretty excited and emotional very quickly in a chat room of all places...

Since this is totally a subjective ruling by the officials, I think it's a little disengenuous to say that their ruling is the only ruling that is acceptable. Isn't possible that the officials could have handled it this way: personal foul on #51 Duke, Flagrant Technical Foul on Henderson (Henderson ejected - NOT for fighting/combative action)? That is the scenario that I would have gone with. I don't have a major problem with what the officials ruled, I have consistently expressed a differing opinion....isn't there room for a differing opinion? Do you absolutely have to be right and I have to be completely wrong?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

....isn't there room for a differing opinion? Do you absolutely have to be right and I have to be completely wrong?

We must indoctrinate you; you must comform; you will become...A STEPFORD REFEREE.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by NewNCref

So, if i'm reading this right, then Henderson should have been given a flagrant technical foul? But the box score says no Ts were given. Any ideas?

No. There's another article in that rule that says if the foul occurs during a live ball, it's a flagrant personal foul, which is what they called.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

It seems that several posters in here get pretty excited and emotional very quickly in a chat room of all places...

I'm too old to get excited, and I don't do that "emotional" thingy either.....

It's just my humble opinion that saying Hansborough initiated the contact on this play is a completely ridiculous statement. Almost as ridiculous as saying that Henderson was just protecting himself by smacking Hansborough in the face and breaking his nose. If what you are saying is true, then if a foul had to be called, Hansborough should have been charged with the foul instead of Henderson.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

I don't have a major problem with what the officials ruled, I have consistently expressed a differing opinion....isn't there room for a differing opinion? Do you absolutely have to be right and I have to be completely wrong?

Of course you can have a differing opinion. I like the fact that people disagree on judgment calls. When I give presentations about show plays, I ask for opinions. You gave your reasoning for a call and you have the right to stick with that. This is the reason many of us are sitting and watching and only commenting on this and the officials on the game were working.

BTW, contact me if you find out anything we talked about on Friday.

Peace

[bellnier]

So, by NCAA rule, Henderson misses the next game. How long before he lawyers-up like OJ Mayo and gets a judge to issue a temporary restraining order that allows him to play? THAT would be a travesty.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bellnier

So, by NCAA rule, Henderson misses the next game. How long before he lawyers-up like OJ Mayo and gets a judge to issue a temporary restraining order that allows him to play? THAT would be a travesty.

For all its faults, the NCAA has better lawyers and more intestinal fortitude than your average high school athletic association.

[MajorCord]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

So in a situation were people are expressing their opinions about a play that none of us where involved in, none of us know the exact details of what discussions took place, and none of us had to ultimately make a decision that is subject to review by millions of others.....why is it that some posters feel that not only are they right, but anyone who disagrees with them are clueless, make senseless statements, or a "baby who needs to take a nap"?

The best officiating crews are ones in which the three calmest people in the arena are the game officials. It seems that several posters in here get pretty excited and emotional very quickly in a chat room of all places...

Since this is totally a subjective ruling by the officials, I think it's a little disengenuous to say that their ruling is the only ruling that is acceptable. Isn't possible that the officials could have handled it this way: personal foul on #51 Duke, Flagrant Technical Foul on Henderson (Henderson ejected - NOT for fighting/combative action)? That is the scenario that I would have gone with. I don't have a major problem with what the officials ruled, I have consistently expressed a differing opinion....isn't there room for a differing opinion? Do you absolutely have to be right and I have to be completely wrong?

The force is strong with this one. JeffPea Kenobi, give up. Resistance is futile.

[whistleone]

I do hereby declare this horse dead!

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

For all its faults, the NCAA has better lawyers and more intestinal fortitude than your average high school athletic association.

Agreed. Further, I'd be surprised to see a school challenged the NCAA in such a situation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Agreed. Further, I'd be surprised to see a school challenged the NCAA in such a situation.

Any school not coached by Jerry Tarkanian, anyway.

[Kelvin green]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

So in a situation were people are expressing their opinions about a play that none of us where involved in, none of us know the exact details of what discussions took place, and none of us had to ultimately make a decision that is subject to review by millions of others.....why is it that some posters feel that not only are they right, but anyone who disagrees with them are clueless, make senseless statements, or a "baby who needs to take a nap"?

The best officiating crews are ones in which the three calmest people in the arena are the game officials. It seems that several posters in here get pretty excited and emotional very quickly in a chat room of all places...

Since this is totally a subjective ruling by the officials, I think it's a little disengenuous to say that their ruling is the only ruling that is acceptable. Isn't possible that the officials could have handled it this way: personal foul on #51 Duke, Flagrant Technical Foul on Henderson (Henderson ejected - NOT for fighting/combative action)? That is the scenario that I would have gone with. I don't have a major problem with what the officials ruled, I have consistently expressed a differing opinion....isn't there room for a differing opinion? Do you absolutely have to be right and I have to be completely wrong?

When I first saw play in real time, it was clearaly intentional from the cheap seats. ...

Looking from the several angles I dont see how you call anything on #51. Looks like a pretty good block to me,,,Even if he gets some arm its way after ball has been blocked. Those are the plays you let go.

It was intentional and flagrant. No doubt deserves to be ejected, and a one game suspension for being ejected is appropriate. You get tossed in high school game here its at least one game, should not be any different up there (except the money)...
In the NBA this would have been flagrant 2, and the league would have decide the suspensions. Great call...

[canuckrefguy]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

Since this is totally a subjective ruling by the officials, I think it's a little disengenuous to say that their ruling is the only ruling that is acceptable. Isn't possible that the officials could have handled it this way: personal foul on #51 Duke, Flagrant Technical Foul on Henderson (Henderson ejected - NOT for fighting/combative action)? That is the scenario that I would have gone with. I don't have a major problem with what the officials ruled, I have consistently expressed a differing opinion....isn't there room for a differing opinion? Do you absolutely have to be right and I have to be completely wrong?

Jeff, originally I wasn't sure it was a flagrant, but that was my slight misunderstanding of the wording of the rule - I agree with the play now, but like Rut mentioned, in real time the first time around, I was not sure what it was at all. But replays and a full understanding of the rules later, I agree.

As for the bizzare responses you generated, I have to say I'm a little surprised at it all. Not much you can do, though.