WBB: Duke 69 North Carolina 63

[Duvall]

Ugly photo (not for the faint of heart). Houston Chron

Is it possible the refs got this not-flagrant-foul right? Or should they be returned to their day jobs?

Let's be clear - the play wasn't called any kind of foul at all.

[Jim3k]

Let's be clear - the play wasn't called any kind of foul at all.

I didn't see the game, only the photo, so thanks for the clarification. I had seen your post (No. 5, in this thread) and inferred from it that at least a common foul had been called.

Your observation makes it clear that the reffing was worse than I thought--not one of the three refs saw this contact. Wow! And it makes my case about whether they should be returned to their day jobs even stronger.

Duke should be outraged and taking this up with the conference so it can deal with the women's referee bureau. And the conference should also be reviewing the film to see if a player suspension is warranted.

[Duvall]

#5, ugh. Sweep or no, I don't want to play the fighting Hatchells again.

Well, UNC has to win two games for that to matter. And if they do, well, then Duke could have a chance to play a weaker opponent than Georgia Tech.

[Devilsfan]

Speaking of the fighting hatchells, the assistant coach, a little less manly, seams to be be mimicking the head coach and complaining to the refs about everything she (hatchell) doesn't approve of. Weird fellow, IMO.

[Stray Gator]

I didn't see the game, only the photo, so thanks for the clarification. I had seen your post (No. 5, in this thread) and inferred from it that at least a common foul had been called.

Your observation makes it clear that the reffing was worse than I thought--not one of the three refs saw this contact. Wow! And it makes my case about whether they should be returned to their day jobs even stronger.

Duke should be outraged and taking this up with the conference so it can deal with the women's referee bureau. And the conference should also be reviewing the film to see if a player suspension is warranted.

After Peters went down and was lying on the floor with blood on her face, and UNC took the ball down to their offensive end and scored against a Duke defense that was one player short, the three officials stopped play, came over to the scorer's table, and reviewed the replay--which unquestionably showed Shegog swinging her elbows wildly side-to-side above shoulder level to protect possession of the ball and connecting with Peters in the face. Then they conferred for a minute and ruled that it was not a foul, but "just a basketball play."

[Duvall]

Duke should be outraged and taking this up with the conference so it can deal with the women's referee bureau. And the conference should also be reviewing the film to see if a player suspension is warranted.

Not worth the time. If the ACC were going to do anything about Hatchell's program, it would have done so by now.

[devildeac]

I didn't see the game, only the photo, so thanks for the clarification. I had seen your post (No. 5, in this thread) and inferred from it that at least a common foul had been called.

Your observation makes it clear that the reffing was worse than I thought--not one of the three refs saw this contact. Wow! And it makes my case about whether they should be returned to their day jobs even stronger.

Duke should be outraged and taking this up with the conference so it can deal with the women's referee bureau. And the conference should also be reviewing the film to see if a player suspension is warranted.

Not worth the time. If the ACC were going to do anything about Hatchell's program, it would have done so by now.

Gerald Henderson has been notified and informed he will be sitting out the first game of the acc tourney in his street clothes while NOT on the Duke bench for this non-flagrant/non-foul.

[buddy]

The commissioner is a UNC grad, attends NCAA disciplinary hearings involving UNC (but no other school), and all the sportswriters in the state went to UNC. I surprised that Haley doesn't get suspended for attempting to bite Shegog's elbow! Just another non-contact 21 stitch injury. Really, the referees should have to explain why contact with an elbow above the shoulder resulting in 21 stitches does NOT constitute a foui.

[Jim3k]

The gallows humor and mentioning the commissioner's possible conflict of interest is fine for a message board. What happened on the court is not fine. A player, by all accounts suffered a bloody mouth injury due to elbow throwing that to most observers seemed in violation of the elbow/flagrant foul rule. Why is this something that should not be investigated? Certainly Shegogg shouldn't be permitted to think it was OK to do what she did and is therefore free to do it again...and again. If the referees are obligated to provide a fair contest, how is it fair for one team to punch out an opposing player by committing a rule violation? That's not providing a fair contest.

And so what if the Commissioner is an alum of the offending team? Make him do his job. In large part this type of issue is an ordinary administrative matter and shouldn't offend any commissioner, no matter who the guilty team may be. These incidents come up every year and with every team. Special protection or favoritism for the commissioner's alma mater is unlikely. It will probably be reviewed by a staff member first anyway, and that person is likely to give the commissioner an unbiased assessment. If he doesn't act fairly, at least the ADs and the presidents will know about it and can act accordingly. Moreover, both the school and the commissioner can force the refs to focus on the issue for the future by taking the matter to the referee supervisor.

I just don't see any downside to pursuing this incident through the existing channels which the conference provides for the purpose. In fact, the downside comes from failing to stand up for one's own student. What do you think the players will think when they learn their own AD won't bother to try to protect one of their teammates, who was an innocent victim?

[Kedsy]

I just don't see any downside to pursuing this incident through the existing channels which the conference provides for the purpose. In fact, the downside comes from failing to stand up for one's own student. What do you think the players will think when they learn their own AD won't bother to try to protect one of their teammates, who was an innocent victim?

I was appalled when I saw the elbow and miffed at the lack of a call, but to answer your question, the downside might be there is no specified procedure for this sort of investigation. To me, it was clear Shegog didn't intend to hurt Haley. If the rule is any above-the-shoulder contact from an elbow is a flagrant foul, it clearly should have been called. (And I don't know if that's the rule, but I thought that's what they said after Miles got called for it several games ago.) However, missed calls don't usually get investigated, and when they do, it generally has ramifications for the referee rather than the violating player. So, unless there's some procedure to penalize a player for a non-intentional, uncalled foul involving errant elbows (and I doubt there is), then to me it wouldn't make sense to pursue this incident at all.

[throatybeard]

Not worth the time. If the ACC were going to do anything about Hatchell's program, it would have done so by now.

Jessica Gaspar just flashed before my eyes.

[Jim3k]

I was appalled when I saw the elbow and miffed at the lack of a call, but to answer your question, the downside might be there is no specified procedure for this sort of investigation. To me, it was clear Shegog didn't intend to hurt Haley. If the rule is any above-the-shoulder contact from an elbow is a flagrant foul, it clearly should have been called. (And I don't know if that's the rule, but I thought that's what they said after Miles got called for it several games ago.) However, missed calls don't usually get investigated, and when they do, it generally has ramifications for the referee rather than the violating player. So, unless there's some procedure to penalize a player for a non-intentional, uncalled foul involving errant elbows (and I doubt there is), then to me it wouldn't make sense to pursue this incident at all.

Clearly the channels for review are there and have been regularly invoked invoked ever since the 1961 Heyman-Brown affair. It is a primary goal of the league to avoid serious injuries. Restraining dirty and reckless play is paramount to that purpose.

These calls for investigations are usually supported by evidence provided by the school making the complaint--here, there must be video shot from several angles--not just the TV, but courtside shots by Duke-connected people and perhaps news shots as well as the official game film. If these support the observers' reports that Shegog's elbows were thrown illegally, then there are several directions the conference can go. Since the refs did not make a call, the question is why not? The refs' reports and video should provide an easy answer. Perhaps the refs were out of position or looking the wrong way for some reason. The same evidence will show what Shegog actually did, and may show why the refs reached their conclusion that the injury was due to an ordinary basketball matter--but--it also might show that they saw an illegality and did nothing about it. The ref supervisor can get that sort of thing fixed. Finally, it can be determined whether Shegog's conduct merits any level of post-game discipline, even if it's only a gentle reminder to adhere to the swinging elbow rule.

Maybe after all is said and done, the league concludes the complaint(s) are meritless. If fair-minded, even a review which ultimately supports the referees accomplishes a clearing of the air. Invoking the process still sends a message that consequences are always possible. If that has a deterrent effect which prevents a future injury, that is a positive outcome.

Being proactive starts a remedial and/or prophylactic process. Doing nothing constitutes lack of leadership and will lead to worse injuries.

[bird]

My highly speculative lip reading of the refs when they reviewed the hit on Peters was the male ref saying "that's a one" and the female ref saying "we didn't call it." I am pretty sure about the "that's a one." My inference was that the refs decided that they could not assess a flagrant one because they had not called any foul on the play and play continued.

I was pretty dang impressed when Peters returned in the game and she stuck her head into a physical play right away.

[CameronBornAndBred]

#5, ugh. Sweep or no, I don't want to play the fighting Hatchells again.

I do, I'd much rather face them than Brenda's Twerps or Miami again.

[dukeman28428]

We were at the game yesterday and the elbow by Shegog looked flagrant to me.
Have to admire Peters coming back and playing after a tough injury like that.
Duke is maturing as a team and so proud to support them. Nice to get a win in Chapel Hill for seniors.
GO DUKE

[buddy]

My comment about the commissioner being a heel was sarcastic, of course. There is precedent for reviewing a play after the game, even if no foul was called. The NCAA suspended Phil Sellers for pounding Laettner's head into the floor, a play on which no foul was called. On the other hand, Laettner was not suspended for the "stomp" precisely because he was penalized during the game. I too thought that the new rule was designed to eliminate elbow contact above the shoulders, and that intent was not the issue. That certainly was the issue when Miles was called for Tanner Smith's flop. I honestly do not remember if Henderson was charged with a foul for the Hansbrough incident, but the league sure did come down on him like a ton of bricks later. I have trouble understanding how any play that results in 21 stitches to an opposing player is a "basketball play". Especially after Miles' love tap, I would like for Duke to pursue this just to get clarification. But I think we know the answer--bloody a Carolina star and you get publicly vilified and a two game suspension. Bloody a Duke star and it is "play on". But Duke still gets all the calls.

That said--Haley proved once again that she is a warrior. We are blessed to have two more years (and this year's tournaments) to watch her. Enjoy!

[devildeac]

My comment about the commissioner being a Tar Heel was sarcastic, of course. There is precedent for reviewing a play after the game, even if no foul was called. The NCAA suspended Phil Sellers for pounding Laettner's head into the floor, a play on which no foul was called. On the other hand, Laettner was not suspended for the "stomp" precisely because he was penalized during the game. I too thought that the new rule was designed to eliminate elbow contact above the shoulders, and that intent was not the issue. That certainly was the issue when Miles was called for Tanner Smith's flop. I honestly do not remember if Henderson was charged with a foul for the Hansbrough incident, but the league sure did come down on him like a ton of bricks later. I have trouble understanding how any play that results in 21 stitches to an opposing player is a "basketball play". Especially after Miles' love tap, I would like for Duke to pursue this just to get clarification. But I think we know the answer--bloody a Carolina star and you get publicly vilified and a two game suspension. Bloody a Duke star and it is "play on". But Duke still gets all the calls.

That said--Haley proved once again that she is a warrior. We are blessed to have two more years (and this year's tournaments) to watch her. Enjoy!

Some points of clarification (from memory):

Henderson was charged with a flagrant foul on the play. And, upon further review (take a guess who the refs were in THAT game), it was then deemed "fighting" so he got his 1 (not 2) game suspension. What really steamed K was that Gerald had so sit behind the bench and not with the team despite the fact earlier that year (or was it the prior year?), Chris Paul was allowed to sit on the WFU bench during his 1 game suspension for his testicular assault.

I'm with Jim3K on this one. Have the Duke athletic office send a "formal" complaint (in support of our players/Peters) to the acc office and see what answer they get. I'd bet a small sum of OPK's (or Ozzie's) money that there is no further action and Gog/Magog/Shegog is not found guilty of anything, nor are the officials. Just what I would expect. Unless the situation was reversed as buddy posted above.

[jimsumner]

The play happened a long way from where I was sitting and I didn't record the game. But several people with a Duke affiliation who were pretty close to the play, told me it was a clean play, with no apparent intent to injure. Haley said it was "just basketball." Wrong place, wrong time.

I've watched Shegog play a lot over the years. She's never seemed like a dirty player to me and I know she went out of her way after the game to talk to Peters and make sure they were okay.

The player with 16 stitches in her mouth seems inclined to let it go and move forward. I would follow her lead.

[rasputin]

The play happened a long way from where I was sitting and I didn't record the game. But several people with a Duke affiliation who were pretty close to the play, told me it was a clean play, with no apparent intent to injure. Haley said it was "just basketball." Wrong place, wrong time.

I've watched Shegog play a lot over the years. She's never seemed like a dirty player to me and I know she went out of her way after the game to talk to Peters and make sure they were okay.

The player with 16 stitches in her mouth seems inclined to let it go and move forward. I would follow her lead.

I thought the issue of intent had been taken out of the rule; if you elbow somebody in the head, it is a flagrant one, isn't it?

[-jk]

From the current NCAA rulebook, here are some rules regarding elbows:

p 12, Major Officiating Concerns for Women: Incidental Elbow Contact
Officials are reminded that there can be incidental contact with the elbow above or below the shoulders and that not all elbow contact with the elbow is a foul regardless of where the elbow makes contact. Some incidental contact is being penalized improperly.

Rule 4-29 Art. 2.c. Flagrant One Personal Foul
6. Illegal contact with an elbow that occurs above the shoulders of an opponent when the elbows are not swung excessively per 4-36.7.a.

Rule 4-36 Art. 6. It shall be illegal to extend one’s elbow(s) and make contact when one’s:
a. Hands are on one’s hips;
b. Hands are held near one’s chest; or
c. Arms are held approximately horizontal to the playing court when not holding the ball.
Note: These illegal positions are most commonly used when rebounding, screening or in the various aspects of post play.

Art. 7. The following shall be considered excessive swinging:
a. When arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arm(s) and elbow(s) exceeds that of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot; or
b. When the speed and vigor with which the arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung is such that injury could result if another player were contacted.


Rule 9-13. Elbow(s)
Art. 1. A player shall not excessively swing his or her arm(s) or elbow(s), even without contacting an opponent.
Art. 2. A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body.
Art. 3. Action of arm(s) and elbow(s) resulting from total body movement as in pivoting or movement of the ball incidental to feinting with it, releasing it, or moving it to prevent a held ball or loss of control shall not be considered excessive.

Rule 10-1 Art. 13 Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:
a. Results from total body movement is a common or flagrant 1 personal foul
b. Is excessive per Rule 4-36.7 is a flagrant 2 foul.
c. Occurs above the shoulders of an opponent is a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 personal foul.
d. Occurs below the shoulders of an opponent is a common, flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 personal foul.

So, as I see it, there are two possible elbow-contact scenarios here: either "incidental contact" or where "the speed and vigor with which the arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung is such that injury could result if another player were contacted".

IANAR of course, but it looked like there was no swinging, much less with speed and vigor - just bringing the ball up to pass, and Haley was in a bad spot while recovering on D. Of course, I think Haley was in that bad spot because Shegog pushed her on the rebound, followed by Haley holding Shegog's wrist on the chase, but those weren't called, either. Had either foul been called, the play would have stopped before the injury. Ugly play all the way 'round, but I think the refs got the elbow part right anyway. Either way, Haley's tough as nails.

And the play was nothing like G's forearm to Hans (other than the blood); that one involved G deliberately launching himself from several feet away - deemed wrecklessly by the refs. Very different scenario.

-jk