UNC/Duke Game
 

Hard hit as 14.5 in the second. Did you think it was intentional??
and the ejection afterwards...
"Was it a bad bit of officiating" as the announcers said...I personally thought it was a good call by the officials.

Looks like they tossed Henderson....

I may just agree with Packer. Maybe intentional foul, but flagrant?

If you didn't see it, they ended up ejecting the player. In other words, it was a flagrant foul.

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

It was flagrant. In fact they have deemed it fighting. I agree. The ball was gone and he struck him in the face deliberately. It was a cheap shot. Great job by the officials!

Packer is a toad.

Additionally, please note that Packer once again shows his complete lack of rules knowledge. He stated that the officials were consulting the monitor to see which player fouled. When in fact they were using it determine if a fight had occurred (meaning was a punch or strike thrown). They determined it was combative act.

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.

Scenario #2
4-23-6
When during the course of play, an individual strikes an opponent with the hand, elbow, arm, foot, knee or leg in a non-confrontational manner but the act is excessive or severe, it shall be ruled as a flagrant foul and not a fighting action. When a defined body part is used to strike an opponent but the contact is not severe or excessive, a judgment shall be made by the official as to whether the contact is intentional.

I don't think there's any question that the act was excessive and severe. It was defintely flagrant which requires an ejection. The question is was the act judged to be combative? WRAL has a reporter at the game and he is reporting that the act was deemed combative and that Henderson was ejected for fighting. That will probably include a one game suspension, which would mean he would miss Duke's first round ACC tourney game.

[QUOTE=BktBallRef]When during the course of play, an individual strikes an opponent with the hand, elbow, arm, foot, knee or leg in a non-confrontational manner but the act is excessive or severe, it shall be ruled as a flagrant foul and not a fighting action. When a defined body part is used to strike an opponent but the contact is not severe or excessive, a judgment shall be made by the official as to whether the contact is intentional.[FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT]/QUOTE]

Now THAT I can buy....thanks for the rules reference, Tony!

Wow, that was a lot of blood. Flagrant? I can see it.
If Packer thought it wasn't, then I'm even more convinced it was.

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.

Let me put up a big :D

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?

I think the fact that he take a swing, even though there wasn't a fist, and made contact was all they needed.

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?

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

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.