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.

... and I concur with that decision.

I was just making the point that some people (mostly from the media) are incorrectly stating that he was hit in the face with an elbow and that was not the case.

Thats not a foul in the _____________ ;)

.....wait for it.......

:D

100% correct.

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

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.

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 <b>hands</b>...."

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

In both cases, the act can be deemed flagrant.

Having a "closed fist" isn't a prerequisite to have a flagrant foul.

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....:)

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

Ooooooooo! Baby bear needs a nap!! It was a joke, hence the :rolleyes:.

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? http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/grumble.gif

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

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.

When I first saw the incident I thought, flagrent YES, just look at the blood ect. But when I saw the replay over and over and over I began to think what the officials finnaly called. I think however this was just because I saw it over and over that I changed my mind, not because of anything diffrent I saw during the replays, thus I would prob have called it flagrent, but a combative act, probably not, however I can understand how those guys called it and well they are working D1 and are much better officials then me so on a close play like this I have to trust them.

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?

That sums it up right there. Three experienced officials with the added benefit of being able to use replay.

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.

LOL my thoughts exactly. Crews don't get much better than that.

Good call IMO.

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?

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.

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.

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.

:( I missed the game. Anybody got a link for the video of what happened?

Thanks!

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.

And once again you are wrong. Intent and combative are NOT the same thing. Intent is NOT required.

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.....

Excuse me, are you clueless or are you an American? I guess that's an oxymoron. :rolleyes:

Hmmm - guess you're right. The "joke" is lost on me.

Oh well...I'm sure you'll get over it, too.

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.

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...:)

No, they didn't have just one look in real time. They used the courtside monitor to determine if a fight occurred as is permitted by the NCAA rules. BktBallref cited the proper A.R. in post #7 of this thread.

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.

Major, I've uploaded it to YouTube but it hasn't been processed yet. Just watch ESPN. I'm sure you'll be able to find it.

:) Thanks BBR. (From one Carolinian to another!)

Here ya go!

http://media.putfile.com/Henderson-Cheapshot

Good take by ESPN's Pat Forde:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colum...0&sportCat=ncb

I think "redundant" is the term you're looking for.

Say what? Hansborough <B>caused</b> the contact? He was just <b>protecting</b> 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?

Honestly ladies and gentlemen. For jeffpea to say Hansborough had anything to do with Henderson making contact nearly trumps all of Old School's posts combined.
Jeff, if you really believe what you posted you will have a hard time as an official. I intend no personal attacks or anything like that. You are way off with this one. Way off!

Coach K: "The game was over before that," he said. "I mean the outcome of the game, let's put it that way. That's unfortunate, too, that those people were in the game in that play. Maybe this wouldn't have happened."

Coach K has reached Isaiah Thomas stupidity with this remark.

I thought the same thing at first. But he then went on to say that both teams should have had their walk-ons in the game at that point. I don't think he was being critical of Williams. The truth is if he had let the game end, then Henderson wouldn't have been in the game and he wouldn't be sitting on the bench Thursday while his team is playing.

In the meantime, he continued to foul to stop the clock. Williams had to leave some of his starters in. You'll also notice tha Henderson, Paulus and Scheyer were still in the game, too.

2 questions
 

I agree with the decisions that were made by the experienced and talented crew in the last minute of the game. I could have lived with an intentional foul on that play.

Two questions:
1. Do you think that they would have called it differently if Henderson's elbow would have landed 3 inches to the left or right and Hansbrough could have stayed in the game (assuming no blood)? Should that (blood or player's responce to situation) be a factor to the type of foul that is called?

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?

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/bs_sign.gif

Good grief!!!!! http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...es/roflmao.gif

There is nothing basketball-specific about the term 'comabtive act' - unlike, say, 'travel' - as it appears in the rule books. A combative act is any act which potentially leads to a fight. Period. At McDonald's, in a shopping mall, on the basketball court. Disagree completely with what I underlined.

At least we can agree striking an opponent with an open hand can be considered a combative act.

Edit: Just took a look at the video. What a stupid discussion. This is a clearly flagrant act, whether or not you want to call it combative.

Yes.

NCAA 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.

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.

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....

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.......

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.

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.

This does not change my opinion on the play but......
 

Hansborough broke his nose on this play.

Peace

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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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 <b>initiated</b> the contact on this play is a completely ridiculous statement. Almost as ridiculous as saying that Henderson was just <b>protecting</b> 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.

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

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.

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

I do hereby declare this horse dead!

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. :D

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...

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. :confused:

The flagrant in the Duke/UNC game got all the media attention because of all the blood, the two teams involved being major programs and big rivals, plus it was played at a good time to garner a large TV audience on the East Coast. However, I was wondering how many people are aware that there was also a flagrant foul called in the St. Mary's/Santa Clara WCC semi-final. This probably got much less attention because the game started a nearly 9PM PST or midnight eastern.
I saw the play and the defender really clocked him in the side of the head as he was airborne and outstretched attempting a lay-in. It was quite nasty. The officials did a great job of calling it flagrant, but I believe not fighting just excessive, so there shouldn't be a suspension.
I don't have a video clip, perhaps someone else can find or post one, but here is the description from the ESPN recap:

"Tempers flared briefly after St. Mary's Brett Collins slammed into Santa Clara's Scott Dougherty as he went up for a layup. Collins was ejected from the game."

As a St. Mary's alum, that is dissappointing to hear and I cant believe I missed the game on TV. Living in Texas now, I don't get to see many SMC games!! If anyone can find a clip of the play I would love to see it.

BTW... in case you don't know: Santa Clara is to St. Mary's as Duke is to North Carolina. Pretty ironic that both games had a Flagrant!