PDA

View Full Version : Technical for language...not the elbow



keithg
02-14-2009, 09:25 AM
I don't buy it. Covering up a mistake in my opinion

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3905167&name=katz_andy

NCAA coordinator of officials John Adams said Thursday that Duke's Kyle Singler should have been assessed an intentional technical foul for his elbow to North Carolina's Tyler Hansbrough while in a scrum for a loose ball during the Duke-UNC game Wednesday night. That would have given North Carolina two shots and the ball. He said the officials gave Singler an unsportsmanlike technical foul for his language. He said the officials told him that Singler said, "Get the [bleep] off me," when attempting to get free of the scrum. UNC got two shots, but Duke retained possession on the jump ball. Adams said he agreed that Singler should not have received a flagrant foul.

coldriver10
02-14-2009, 10:47 AM
Wait, so which is it? This quote

NCAA coordinator of officials John Adams said Thursday that Duke's Kyle Singler should have been assessed an intentional technical foul for his elbow to North Carolina's Tyler Hansbrough
makes it sound like Adams think he should have gotten a flagrant foul. But then he says

Adams said he agreed that Singler should not have received a flagrant foul.
Am I just reading something wrong?

dbd4ever
02-14-2009, 10:58 AM
That's the biggest load of crap!!! He was called for the elbow because the ref that made the call was over at the scorer's table explaining the call and kept throwing his elbow back to show the people at the scorer's table what had happened and what the call was. That's just stupid for them to even come out and say that!! And why would Kyle even say that when he was the one laying on top of Hansbrough. If anyone said "Get the (bleep) off of me" it looks like it would have been Hansbrough.

keithg
02-14-2009, 11:10 AM
NCAA coordinator of officials John Adams ...

Since it was a direct quote, I guess we can add him to the list of liars and conspirants against Duke. Hard to get a fair shake since he is the coordinator of officials. I suggest we secede from the NCAA!

DukieInKansas
02-14-2009, 11:10 AM
As I recall, Hansbeakers hands were reaching underneath Kyle before he pulled them away. I wondered what he might have been doing. Perhaps that promoted the swearing? ;)

Devilsfan
02-14-2009, 11:51 AM
Let's get real. Good for Kyle. He's not in church, he's in combat on the court. I love the fight in this man.

concrete
02-14-2009, 11:55 AM
So the idea is that Kyle - laying on top of Hansbrough legs - decides to throw an elbow for no reason. It's like the most nonsensical thing I've ever heard...even Dennis Rodman wouldn't do something like that.

Uncle Drew
02-14-2009, 12:28 PM
Now that I have finally seen and heard EVERYTHING, I am going about making my will and getting my final arrangements in order. I'm with dbd4ever, in saying that is a load of equestrian fecal matter you could fertilize the Sahara with.

As someone who has watched and played organized basketball all my life to even act as though the foul was for something verbal is insane. You don't have to be deaf to read the lips of players and coaches in every game using profanity. We've all seen and heard Coach K and Duke players do it, we've all seen and heard UNC players swear even dad gum aw shucks Roy. And even if it was for something verbal I don't think Kyle was telling the ref to get the f*** off of him. I might could understand it it Coach K said, "that was a bad f***ing call". Or after the fact if Kyle had said, "you gotta f***ing be kidding me"!

But I want to go back to the situation. I know I'm not alone when I say while I like the desire involved diving on the floor for loose balls. At a certain point when you have ten guys all in a scrum piling on the whistle needs to be blown. It's amazing someone doesn't get hurt with all those bodies on the floor and other players stepping on and over players to try to get to a ball already tied up. And maybe I'm wrong but back in the Gminski days and before I can't remember huge piles of bodies for the refs to uncover as if they were trying to determine who recovered a fumble.

Not to sound like an old goat, but didn't it used to be a travel if you were sliding on your but or laying on your back with the ball? And in the case with Kyle since when is it okay for a player to have his arms wrapped around you to tie the ball up. If they were standing wouldn't that be an over the back foul? Frankly I don't even think of it as pro-UNC or anti-Duke because I've seen too much of it in games where neither team was involved. It just sucks when our player got fustrated over physical play when the whistle could / should have been blows several seconds earlier.

merry
02-14-2009, 02:22 PM
... Or after the fact if Kyle had said, "you gotta f***ing be kidding me"!

I believe that the correct expression grammatically would be "you gotta be f***cking kidding me!" :)

Seriously though - is it actually a technical foul to swear, assuming you're not talking to the ref? Also since when does the head of officials come out and comment to the media on something like this? Was there an investigation? I still can't believe whar a big deal this has become.

Kewlswim
02-14-2009, 02:30 PM
Hi,

I think what happened here is that the refs needed to call a T in honor of Dan Ewing!! Poor Dan used to get a T for just saying to the ref, "Go Duke!"

I wonder if I get a T every time I post?

GO DUKE!!

DukieInKansas
02-14-2009, 02:41 PM
Hi,

I think what happened here is that the refs needed to call a T in honor of Dan Ewing!! Poor Dan used to get a T for just saying to the ref, "Go Duke!"

I wonder if I get a T every time I post?

GO DUKE!!

Here's your T. :)

allenmurray
02-14-2009, 02:47 PM
Seriously though - is it actually a technical foul to swear, assuming you're not talking to the ref?

Officials will put up with a lot more langauge from a coach than from a player.

devildeac
02-14-2009, 02:56 PM
I believe that the correct expression grammatically would be "you gotta be f***cking kidding me!" :)

Seriously though - is it actually a technical foul to swear, assuming you're not talking to the ref? Also since when does the head of officials come out and comment to the media on something like this? Was there an investigation? I still can't believe whar a big deal this has become.

It's Duke and it involves a "controversial" officiating decision. What do you expect? I halfway (fully?) expect Kyle to be tossed in a game before the end of the season over some "excessive" physical contact foul to "make-up" for this "controversial" call from which he was not tossed. Call it the Daniel Ewing rule when he elbowed CP as he tried to drive his head through the court during a scrum. Or, call it the Luckie/Hess rule which designated G's flagrant foul on hans as "fighting" and had him serve a 1 game suspension. Or maybe the "improper" T on f$u's Johnson (?) at CIS which resulted in the suspension of the reffing crew for a game and the subsequent horrendously officiated game at f$u several weeks later when the PF and FT were about 2:1 against us. I'm sure Stray remembers that game as he attended and sat very close to courtside and commented here or on another board about how unevenly or inconsistently (cough) that game was called, depending on which end of the court you were:rolleyes:.

chrishoke
02-14-2009, 02:58 PM
I have an answer regarding why the big deal and why the public statement:

Thousands of complaining emails from UNC fans.

Cameron
02-14-2009, 04:33 PM
Aside from the fact that it wasn't much of an impact -- Hasbrough did a wonderful job of creating the event, acting as if he'd need flown to the Cleveland Clinic -- I loved Singler's message to Carolina's masked crusader.

I'd give up a lot to watch Hansbrough go home a big loser in March, in some sad or heartbreaking way, say a buzzer beater or a KU-like clobbering.

Uncle Drew
02-14-2009, 04:39 PM
I believe that the correct expression grammatically would be "you gotta be f***cking kidding me!" :)

Seriously though - is it actually a technical foul to swear, assuming you're not talking to the ref? Also since when does the head of officials come out and comment to the media on something like this? Was there an investigation? I still can't believe whar a big deal this has become.

As awful as the F bomb is to sensitive ears as a humourous cartoon clip from several years ago noted it is the most useful word in the English language. It can be used as a noun, a verb, and adjective, and adverb etc. That's what makes it so great, my way or merry's way are both correct. And yet according to the refs so wrong.

But if allenmurray is right and it is slightly tollerated by a coach and not a player, is that fair? And if it isn't said to the ref is it really any of his buisness? I mean against Georgetown Greg Monroe got called for the technical while on the bench. I know for a fact the ref that called that T could not have been sure who said what with his back turned. He wasn't even sure it wasn't a fan behid the Hoya bench.

I think we all know the call had nothing to do with anything that was said and that is the whole point. Whether it should have been flagrant or intentional or no call is all up to debate. But we all know it wasn't due to something Kyle said no matter what the conference wants to claim after the fact. It's bad when revisionists get to work on the history books and a week hasn't even passed yet and they won the game. Of course I still vividly remember Hansbrough intentionally slamming his nose into Hendersons elbow like it was yesterday. :D

riverside6
02-14-2009, 05:56 PM
Continuing the theme of elbows being thrown, Solomon Alabi was just tossed for an elbow to McFarland's face. Cue the conspiracy over Duke players advantage with refs.

Stray Gator
02-14-2009, 06:26 PM
Continuing the theme of elbows being thrown, Solomon Alabi was just tossed for an elbow to McFarland's face. Cue the conspiracy over Duke players advantage with refs.

And the color commentator remarked that he didn't understand why Singler wasn't tossed for elbowing Hansbough during the Duke-UNC game. :rolleyes:

Newton_14
02-14-2009, 06:27 PM
Continuing the theme of elbows being thrown, Solomon Alabi was just tossed for an elbow to McFarland's face. Cue the conspiracy over Duke players advantage with refs.

I was thinking the same thing. I happened to have been watching the Wake/FSU game when that happened. Horrible decision to toss Alabi for that. And, Jason Capel is announcing and he immediately referenced both the Singler and Paulus incidents of recent and quickly made the point that in all three incidents only Singler was allowed to keep playing. So more fuel to the fire....

307Brown
02-14-2009, 10:49 PM
I agree with some of the earlier opinions that the official explanation doesn't add up. The only thing that I can figure is that the refs needed to find a reason for giving Duke the ball after the FTs since, by my reading of the rules, an elbow would have to be either a flagrant or intentional technical foul which would give the ball to UNC.

Beyond that, I am still perplexed by John Adam's statement that the elbow should have been called as intentional but not flagrant. Even though I don't think it was either, I am wondering if someone with a better understanding of the rules can help me out.

Under Rule 10, Sec. 5, Art. 1 it is a technical foul when a player:
"d. Intentionally contact[s] an opponent in an excessive but non-flagrant
manner while the ball is dead."
"g. A player flagrantly or excessively contact[s] an opponent while the
ball is dead."

Adams seems to be saying that Singler did "d" but not "g".

However, Rule 4, Sec. 26, Art. 7 says:
"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."

It seems to me that an intentional technical foul requires excessive contact under Rule 10, but that excessive contact with an elbow must be flagrant under Rule 4. So how would the Singler elbow be an intentional technical foul but not a flagrant foul?

Maybe I am misapplying Rule 4 (which concerns fighting) to this situation. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me understand this.

longtimefan
02-14-2009, 10:55 PM
If it was a dead ball and not during play it shouldn't affect possession right?or am i missing something?

devildeac
02-14-2009, 11:09 PM
And the color commentator remarked that he didn't understand why Singler wasn't tossed for elbowing Hansbough during the Duke-UNC game. :rolleyes:

I smell some extra scrutiny for Kyle for the remainder of the year...

307Brown
02-14-2009, 11:12 PM
Rule 7, Sec. 5, Art. 7. After a technical foul, a player of the offended team may attempt the free throws and the ball shall be put back in play at the point of
interruption.
Exceptions: (Men) Flagrant technical foul and intentional technical
foul, play shall resume by awarding the ball to the offended team at a
designated spot at the division line on either side of the playing court.

Intentional and flagrant technical fouls are those flagrant and technical fouls, respectively, that occur during a dead ball. The inbounds rule is the same for flagrant and technical fouls that occur during play.

For regular technical fouls, i.e. not flagrant or intentional, that occur during live play or at a dead ball, the normal point of interruption rules are in effect, which I think would give the ball to Duke on the jump ball.

devildeac
02-14-2009, 11:12 PM
I was thinking the same thing. I happened to have been watching the Wake/FSU game when that happened. Horrible decision to toss Alabi for that. And, Jason Capel is announcing and he immediately referenced both the Singler and Paulus incidents of recent and quickly made the point that in all three incidents only Singler was allowed to keep playing. So more fuel to the fire....

Ahh, the other Capel announcing. Now there's an unbiased source:rolleyes:. Is he as bad as stuart scott or elmore?

(BTW, Jeff was better: clap, clap, clap/clap/clap)

merry
02-14-2009, 11:12 PM
As awful as the F bomb is to sensitive ears as a humourous cartoon clip from several years ago noted it is the most useful word in the English language. It can be used as a noun, a verb, and adjective, and adverb etc.


Don't forget it can also be used as an infix, as in "this in un-f***ing-believable!"

allenmurray
02-15-2009, 10:42 AM
But if allenmurray is right and it is slightly tollerated by a coach and not a player, is that fair? And if it isn't said to the ref is it really any of his buisness? I mean against Georgetown Greg Monroe got called for the technical while on the bench. I know for a fact the ref that called that T could not have been sure who said what with his back turned. He wasn't even sure it wasn't a fan behid the Hoya bench.

In regard to your first point, no, it is not fair, but it is true. Officials will also give a lot more leeway to a head coach than to as assistant. Officials are accustomed tot alking to a coach throughout the game. They really don't want to hear multiple voices. If the comments are limited to one person, the official will give that person more leeway.

As for the Monroe incident, you may be right. However, I also remember during that game the announcer (I don't recall who it was) commenting on the fact that a ref will almost always make that call on the bench unless he knows for absolute certain who made the remark. The announcer said it is so rare for an individual player to get called in that situation (as opposed to the bench) that it was almost a certainty that the official knew it was Monroe. And just because the official had his back turned doesn't mean he doesn't know it was Monroe - if he'd been talking with him all game he may have been awfully certain he knew the voice - plus, Monroe didn't seem to protest very much as I recall (he looked sheepish, as if to say, "yeah, you got me").