I read your guest column in which the author compares the Henderson/Hansbrough incident to a play in the 2004 game in Chapel Hill involving David Noel and Luol Deng. Although I was at that game, I had trouble remembering what had happened; I guess that's what 40+ years of watching these does to you. But, just a short time ago, I reviewed a You Tube clip of that play, via a thread on the Inside Carolina message board.
I almost laughed when I saw and remembered the play in question. I have always enjoyed this site, largely due of its relative objectivity, even with subjects involving UNC. However, by posting such nonsense as your guest columnist offers on this subject (e.g. "Noel slamming Deng to the floor", "Deng came close to suffering a catastrophic injury"), you lose a lot of credibility. To compare the two plays is laughable, at best.
To quote the revered Coach K, "I mean, come on." This column is beneath your fine site.
I too had forgotten about that play, so I watched the video.
Looked really benign to me.
agreed, there was no intent to injure. it was a play on the ball. probably should have been called a foul, but definitely nothing worse than that.
I'm assuming that DBR will now take down the Arnie Schechter piece or at least post the link to the video, demonstrating that the guest columnist's memory was clouded, to say the least.
Or perhaps you guys are trying to deflect?
There was certainly no malicious intent on Noel's part. Definitley just a part of the physical play of the game. Much like another play...
"flop"? "Bit of a reputation for that"?
Oh that's right - I remember the time we had a scholarship football player on our team who really wasn't a good foul shooter, so when he got bumped he was too "injured" to shoot the free throws. Oh wait - that was Ronald Curry, and that was unc.
If you come over here, bring some semblence of having a clue.
Subsitute TH for Luol and GH for Noel and it's the exact same situation. The only distinction is the insane level of overreaction the latter incident received (from both TH and the media).
But, I do believe that it is accurate to say that Duke has developed such a reputation over the past few years, among the non-Duke partisans at least. I think it's a fair statement, and was offered as a response to the question about the booing.
I assure you, I have a clue, much more so than the guy who tried to equate the Noel/Deng play to the one on Sunday.
"(including most of the Carolina team and Roy Williams) has stated that it wasn't intentional..."
Carolina's company line is pretty gracious, and it's undoubtedly not how some over there truly feel, but it serves the conference and rivalry far better than some of the things we've heard uttered so far.
As for Henderson, there's a whole lot of shuffling about the definition of intent going on. Not many rational people would say that he intended to drive his forearm into Hansbrough's nose. But not many rational people would say that he did not intend to create a violent collision, which ultimately resulted in lots of blood. Personally, I feel that there's no place in the sport for violence, and that what Henderson perpetrated was indeed violent. I have a hard time believing that anybody could reasonably refute that unless they felt they had something to protect.
Before I read the original column on this topic, I thought the headline was referring to the Larry Brown/Art Heyman incident from the early 60's. That would have made more sense.