UNC/Duke Game

[Teigan]

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.

[canuckrefguy]

Looks like they tossed Henderson....

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

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[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.

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.

[canuckrefguy]

[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!

[Nevadaref]

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.

[tomegun]

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?

[BktBallRef]

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.

[Adam]

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.

[tjones1]

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

[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

[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....

[sj]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by sj

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.

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.