The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

View Poll Results: Was it intentional
Yes 46 74.19%
No 16 25.81%
Voters: 62. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 06:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 71
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.

Last edited by Teigan; Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 06:17pm.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 06:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 1,628
Looks like they tossed Henderson....

I may just agree with Packer. Maybe intentional foul, but flagrant?
__________________
HOMER: Just gimme my gun.
CLERK: Hold on, the law requires a five-day waiting period; we've got run a background check...
HOMER: Five days???? But I'm mad NOW!!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 06:17pm
M.A.S.H.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,030
If you didn't see it, they ended up ejecting the player. In other words, it was a flagrant foul.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 06:18pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 29,942
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 06:18pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,834
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.

Last edited by Nevadaref; Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:36pm.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 06:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,834
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 06:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,614
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.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith

Last edited by BktBallRef; Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 06:38pm.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 06:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 1,628
[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!
__________________
HOMER: Just gimme my gun.
CLERK: Hold on, the law requires a five-day waiting period; we've got run a background check...
HOMER: Five days???? But I'm mad NOW!!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 06:46pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 06:50pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,834
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 07:09pm
Huck Finn
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 3,347
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?
__________________
"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden

Last edited by tomegun; Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 08:26pm.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 07:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
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.
I think the fact that he take a swing, even though there wasn't a fist, and made contact was all they needed.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 07:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 547
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 07:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
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?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sun Mar 04, 2007, 07:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,614
Excuse me but are you clueless or are you a Duke fan? I guess that's an oxymoron.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith

Last edited by BktBallRef; Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:45pm.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who is working the Duke / UNC game? rgncjn Basketball 84 Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:29am
Brawl in the BC/Duke game JugglingReferee Basketball 38 Tue Mar 14, 2006 05:20pm
Duke - UConn women's game oatmealqueen Basketball 6 Sun Jan 04, 2004 08:25am
Duke/UTT Game CK Basketball 9 Wed Apr 02, 2003 01:14pm
Duke game last night Zebra1 Basketball 8 Tue Mar 25, 2003 06:29pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:15pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1