Cheap Shot on Singler VIDEO

[slower]

Why isn't more attention being paid to this? There has got to be someone in the Athletic department that is bringing this to the attention of the ACC.

It is not just this one egregious instance. Over the past few weeks we've seen some serious lack of officiating acumen when it comes to protecting the players.

When I see this stuff happening I can't help but think of Duke @ GT back in the 2001 season. A GT player had done something along the lines of what we've seen recently. Running back down court after a made basket, Boozer laid a big old elbow right in the face of that GT player to let him know that plays like that aren't going to be tolerated. Now, I'm not advocating for Duke to get down to Virginia Tech's or Maryland's' level but at some point you have to let other teams know that you won't let those type of "plays" continue; a message if you will.

Should it ever get to that point? How do we avoid something like that? Duke makes a public attempt to shine a light on this type of play. If anything, DBR should have a front page story based solely on the VT clothesline of Singler. Just linking to a story about "Duke gets all the calls debunked" won't do it. There should be a picture of the moment of contact on the front page! Coach K should address this in his media address this week. I feel this strongly about it. That play was assault and battery in the guise of tough play on the court. Duke doesn't want to come across as a bunch of whiners but as an institution you have to respond publicly in order to protect your student athletes. It is apparent that ACC officiating isn't.

Totally totally TOTALLY agree. It should be fairly obvious that teams still try to "punk" Duke. And if they are allowed to get away with it, it will only get worse. Maybe we need to find some hulking "walk-ons" to enforce things a bit. God, where is Maurice Lucas when you need him?

[miramar]

Since Duke supposedly gets all the calls, Dykes and company conveniently forgot to comment on the play (I think in the final minute or so) where Singler is tied up for a jump ball under the basket and Tech gets the ball on alternating possessions (so I guess it wasn't a jump ball after all).

The Tech player had his toe on the line and the ball should have been out of bounds to Duke rather than Tech. Since Tech scored off the inbounds, that was a big call.

But as long as Dykes keeps saying that Henderson should come back for his senior season I will go easy on him.

[Bluedog]

Why isn't more attention being paid to this? There has got to be someone in the Athletic department that is bringing this to the attention of the ACC.

I think the most obvious explanation as to why there isn't more attention being paid to this is simple: Singler wasn't seriously injured. Although it certainly was a cheap shot that COULD have inflicted serious damage, it didn't (fortunately for us). Referees and fans frequently care more about the consequence of the foul than the action itself. For example, I think if Henderson had hit Hansbrough on his forehead instead of his nose with the same force and same intent as before, he would have been called for a simple foul. The gushing of blood caused the referees to look at the replay. If Singler had been on the ground for longer and taken out of the game, I think the refs would have reviewed it. I'm not saying this makes sense, but that's been my impression in the past...

[SMO]

Why isn't more attention being paid to this? There has got to be someone in the Athletic department that is bringing this to the attention of the ACC.

My guess, and it's pure speculation, is that the league will point this incident out to VaTech and Goonberg and give them a stern talking to privately. It would be politically inconvenient to suspend a player because it:

1. Makes the officials look bad since they completely missed it
2. ESPN could take this opportunity to further support the "Duke gets all the calls" myth

[Uncle Drew]

My guess, and it's pure speculation, is that the league will point this incident out to VaTech and Goonberg and give them a stern talking to privately. It would be politically inconvenient to suspend a player because it:

1. Makes the officials look bad since they completely missed it
2. ESPN could take this opportunity to further support the "Duke gets all the calls" myth

Look, the VT cheap shot was not the first time in the last decade we have seen other teams try to rough up Duke. Every team in the nation has the idea to play rough against Duke because Duke has lost physical games in the past. I realize physical play is a long way from cheap shots in general. But when players are instructed to try and manhandle the opposing team and be as rough as possible "dirty" play is inevitable IMO. If the Duke athletic dept. sent tape of the VT elbow before or after the Hokies play UNC it's not changing the tactic.



If Terrell Bell gets a one (or more) game suspension for his cheap shot on Singler (which he obviously deserves) it still won't keep teams from trying it. And let's even say the refs had seen the dirty play in game and thrown Bell out of the game. If Singler hadn't been able to continue (and Kyle showed all the toughness in the world "walking" it off) which player is more valuable to his team? (Bell 2.6ppg, 1.2apg, 3.0rpg...Singler 16.1ppg, 2.7apg, 7.8rpg) This is just a hypothetical with no disrespect to Jordan Davidson, but if he and Hansbrough got into a altercation on court and both got tossed, who would suffer more Duke or UNC?



I'm not saying that Greenberg sent Bell in to take Singler in particular out. But we have seen cheap dirty play from VT before on more than one occassion. It doesn't take 100 instances to make a pattern, and as we have seen Greenberg isn't the only coach employing this tactic against Duke. Some player was tossed earlier in the season for giving a Duke player (I think it was Paulus) a bust in the chops. Whether that player was suspended the next game or not I can't remember. But I honestly believe Duke doesn't want the media and fans to know if they send game film to the ACC front offices about any incidents. That would only add to the anti-Duke hysteria and IMO with the way Duke games are called / not called and the uneven scheduling I don't think the ACC is on Duke's side in most arguments either.

[bjornolf]

That was in the Miami game, and it was DeQuan Jones that elbowed Paulus after a steal and lay-up.

[77devil]

[I][B]
That would only add to the anti-Duke hysteria and IMO with the way Duke games are called / not called and the uneven scheduling I don't think the ACC is on Duke's side in most arguments either.

It appears that you are profering the notion that the ACC office is engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate the uneven schedule against Duke. Seems a bit paranoid.

[cruxer]

Since Duke supposedly gets all the calls, Dykes and company conveniently forgot to comment on the play (I think in the final minute or so) where Singler is tied up for a jump ball under the basket and Tech gets the ball on alternating possessions (so I guess it wasn't a jump ball after all).

The Tech player had his toe on the line and the ball should have been out of bounds to Duke rather than Tech. Since Tech scored off the inbounds, that was a big call.

You can't see anybody's feet or the endline in this photo, but I have to ask, does this look like a jump ball to you?

From the rulebook: "When a player approaches an opponent from behind or a position from which the player has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility for contact shall be that of the player in the unfavorable position."

-c

[Indoor66]

It appears that you are profering the notion that the ACC office is engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate the uneven schedule against Duke. Seems a bit paranoid.

Naaaaaaaaa, it's only paranoia if nobody is shooting at you.

[DukeUsul]

You can't see anybody's feet or the endline in this photo, but I have to ask, does this look like a jump ball to you?

From the rulebook: "When a player approaches an opponent from behind or a position from which the player has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility for contact shall be that of the player in the unfavorable position."

-c

I just captured this (poorly) from my DVR recording of the game. Mr. Toe, meet Mr. Line.

[FireOgilvie]

I just captured this (poorly) from my DVR recording of the game. Mr. Toe, meet Mr. Line.

Good work.

[alteran]

Naaaaaaaaa, it's only paranoia if nobody is shooting at you.

In my family, we express the same sentiment, saying, "it's not paranoia when they're really trying to get you."

(Not that I'm saying the ACC front office is out to get us based on the mind-bogglingly consistent schedule difficulty we've recieved. I really think that's coincidence. Even if they WANTED to screw us, they just couldn't predict which teams would be great and double them up on us every year, and single us up on the teams that collapse. If the ACC front office has proven anything, it's that they're simply not that bright.)

[Indoor66]

In my family, we express the same sentiment, saying, "it's not paranoia when they're really trying to get you."

(Not that I'm saying the ACC front office is out to get us based on the mind-bogglingly consistent schedule difficulty we've recieved. I really think that's coincidence. Even if they WANTED to screw us, they just couldn't predict which teams would be great and double them up on us every year, and single us up on the teams that collapse. If the ACC front office has proven anything, it's that they're simply not that bright.)

Yeah, I think you picked up on the primary reason that few things are really conspiracies.

[Devilsfan]

I know he has seen the replay of the game several times by now. Why doesn't someone ask Seth what he saw and what action he is taking. Coaches at the college level are supposed to be teachers, helping develop charcater. I would like to hear it from Seth's perspective.

[calltheobvious]

You can't see anybody's feet or the endline in this photo, but I have to ask, does this look like a jump ball to you?

From the rulebook: "When a player approaches an opponent from behind or a position from which the player has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility for contact shall be that of the player in the unfavorable position."

-c

Not the same play. Singler went to the line following that mauling.

[The Gordog]

I was responding to the quote in the article that said,

"Yesterday, Virginia Tech’s Terrell Bell decided to take matters into his own hands and leveled Singler with an elbow that was much more malicious than the prior Duke elbows."

I didn't think it was "much more malicious than the prior Duke elbows."

Which one was worse, this or when Gerald Henderson broke UNC's star player's nose?

I don't know how I can make my feelings clear without being banned, but seriously, what's wrong with you? A blow to the throat is a killing blow in most martial arts. It was an obvious attempt to injure and frankly, I'm disappointed that K did not make a stink about it. Comparing a blow to the nose to one to the throat is like comparing a BB gun to a 10 gauge shotgun.

[cruxer]

Not the same play. Singler went to the line following that mauling.

Really? My bad then. I really thought that was the jump ball...

-c

[FireOgilvie]

Really? My bad then. I really thought that was the jump ball...

-c

It was. You were right the first time. It happened with 1:12 left in the game.

[tendev]

You can't see anybody's feet or the endline in this photo, but I have to ask, does this look like a jump ball to you?

From the rulebook: "When a player approaches an opponent from behind or a position from which the player has no reasonable chance to play the ball without making contact with the opponent, the responsibility for contact shall be that of the player in the unfavorable position."

-c

You are right about the rule but it is Singler who appears to be in a VERY unfavorable position.

[DukeUsul]

It was. You were right the first time. It happened with 1:12 left in the game.

I have to agree with calltheobvious. The photo linked by cruxer was of the foul on Singler by Thompson at 4.7s left. It was correctly called a foul and Singler went to the line to make the score 72-65. The obvious difference in the photo is that Thompson has Singler in a near-headlock. See the photo I linked of the "tie-up" at 1:12 in which Thompson is not around Singler's head.

It sure is nice having a snow day so I can review game tape.