PDA

View Full Version : Cheap Shot on Singler VIDEO



BlueintheFace
03-01-2009, 04:38 PM
This was created by a Duke Hater, but here is the video of the very OBVIOUSLY intentional elbow.

This is pretty terrible. I wonder if the ACC reviews these things?

http://rushthecourt.net/2009/03/01/duke-gets-a-taste-of-its-own-medicine/

DUKIE V(A)
03-01-2009, 04:50 PM
Not sure how the refs missed this one...it was in the open court near the play. Very dangerous play. This was a horribly officiated game. I hope it is reviewed and a big deal is made of it. If Singler had done this, it would have been the lead on Sportscenter and we would have had to hear about it for as long as Singler stays at Duke.

FireOgilvie
03-01-2009, 05:05 PM
The guy stuck out his elbow and Singler ran into it... he didn't swing it backwards like Singler did to Hansbrough. I didn't think it was vicious, but I don't know what the guy was thinking... it seemed like a really poor attempt to box out.

BlueintheFace
03-01-2009, 05:08 PM
The guy stuck out his elbow and Singler ran into it... he didn't swing it backwards like Singler did to Hansbrough. I didn't think it was vicious, but I don't know what the guy was thinking... it seemed like a really poor attempt to box out.

I think you are being sarcastic, but I can't be sure. I hope you are.

killerleft
03-01-2009, 05:16 PM
The guy stuck out his elbow and Singler ran into it... he didn't swing it backwards like Singler did to Hansbrough. I didn't think it was vicious, but I don't know what the guy was thinking... it seemed like a really poor attempt to box out.

Uh... which play did you watch, man? Wanna look at that again?

Rudy
03-01-2009, 05:21 PM
The broadcast I watched did not show the elbow but did see Singler go down and stay down for a possession. The announcers didn't say why.

BlueintheFace
03-01-2009, 05:23 PM
Uh... which play did you watch, man? Wanna look at that again?

I think he was joking about Singler running into the elbow. There is no way somebody reasonably believes that haha. The guy doesn't move any part of his body to block out, sees Singler running in, raises his elbow and moves it right towards Singler's head as he runs in. It's not as if this is a play open to interpretation...

DoubleDuke Dad
03-01-2009, 05:26 PM
The guy stuck out his elbow and Singler ran into it... he didn't swing it backwards like Singler did to Hansbrough. I didn't think it was vicious, but I don't know what the guy was thinking... it seemed like a really poor attempt to box out.

You are being way too kind FireOgilvie. Actually, I think Singler should have been T’d up for his flagrant foul on Bell’s elbow with his neck. He is lucky that Bell is not out for the season with an elbow injury.

FireOgilvie
03-01-2009, 05:26 PM
I think you are being sarcastic, but I can't be sure. I hope you are.

I actually wasn't.

I watched the play about 20 times. The guy plants his feet, sticks up his elbow, and gets Singler in the shoulder and then in the neck as Singler runs through. Yeah, it was a foul, but he didn't SWING the elbow backwards, he just kind of stuck it out there. I honestly don't think it was half as bad as G's elbow to Hansbrough.

Edit: I'm obviously the only one that thinks that this is the case. That's okay. Maybe I'm too trusting of Virginia Tech basketball players.

Acymetric
03-01-2009, 05:28 PM
I actually wasn't.

I watched the play about 20 times. The guy plants his feet, sticks up his elbow, and gets Singler in the shoulder and then in the neck as Singler runs through. Yeah, it was a foul, but he didn't SWING the elbow backwards, he just kind of stuck it out there. I honestly don't think it was half as bad as G's elbow to Hansbrough.

So you're saying the guy clotheslined Singler? Because I'm pretty sure thats not a legal basketball move and would probably still be an intentional/flagrant foul.

FireOgilvie
03-01-2009, 05:31 PM
I think he was joking about Singler running into the elbow. There is no way somebody reasonably believes that haha. The guy doesn't move any part of his body to block out, sees Singler running in, raises his elbow and moves it right towards Singler's head as he runs in. It's not as if this is a play open to interpretation...

I have the same interpretation as you, I just don't think it was that bad. I don't think the guy was actually trying to hurt him or anything.

DoubleDuke Dad
03-01-2009, 05:32 PM
So you're saying the guy clotheslined Singler? Because I'm pretty sure thats not a legal basketball move and would probably still be an intentional/flagrant foul.

Never mind basketball. That's not a legal football play!

Fish80
03-01-2009, 05:36 PM
I have the same interpretation as you, I just don't think it was that bad. I don't think the guy was actually trying to hurt him or anything.

Dude, maybe you've never been elbowed in the throat by a 230 lb guy while running full speed. It hurts. It's dangerous.

It was a flagrant foul and a missed call. Thankfully Singler wasn't seriously injured.

FireOgilvie
03-01-2009, 05:38 PM
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?

dukeENG2003
03-01-2009, 05:44 PM
This was far worse, b/c there was no play made on the ball. This is NOT a legal blockout move, and never could be confused for one.

Henderson's elbow was very clearly a play made on the ball (the ball was deflected which changed things dramatically). I'll grant that maybe he shouldn't have been going that hard after a blocked shot in a game that was already decided, but it was a play on the ball gone wrong. This was a deliberate cheap shot. period.

DoubleDuke Dad
03-01-2009, 05:45 PM
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?

Keep digging. You haven’t reached bottom yet.

Bluedog
03-01-2009, 05:46 PM
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?

The outcome? Clearly, Henderson's elbow caused much more damage. I think this is worse, though, due to the obvious intent. In this case, he intentionally gave an elbow to the neck, while G's elbow is much more debatable. (Personally, I think G didn't intentionally try to hit Hansbrough and was going for the ball, but G was out of control with it unnecessarily and caused an unsafe situation).

FireOgilvie
03-01-2009, 05:47 PM
Keep digging. You haven’t reached bottom yet.

Give me a break. I thought I was entitled to my opinion.

DoubleDuke Dad
03-01-2009, 05:55 PM
Give me a break. I thought I was entitled to my opinion.

Yes, of course you are. However that doesn’t give you immunity from being criticized for what you said.

killerleft
03-01-2009, 06:05 PM
Give me a break. I thought I was entitled to my opinion.

You are, F.O. I guess it just shows how open to interpretation calls can be. For me, there seems to be a measured intent by the guy to see how far he can stick his elbow into Kyle's neck. You just don't see many block-outs performed on a guy's Adam's apple.

ncexnyc
03-01-2009, 07:17 PM
Now I'm all for letting the boys play and I have been down on my fellow Duke fans for their biased views on what is or isn't a cheapshot depending who is on the receiving end, but this play was definitely a cheapshot with a capitol C.

Bell is looking right at Kyle, you might say he's sizing him up and then raises his elbow. It's only at the last fraction of a second that he turns towards the basket.

CBDUKE
03-01-2009, 09:02 PM
FO, you are correct that he didn't swing his elbow. However, look at it again and you will see that he had to lunge out to make contact with Singler.

bhop22
03-01-2009, 09:15 PM
After what I've seen from Va. Tech players in the past, I would have to believe the act was intentional. There have been several questionable acts from the Hokies in the past few years.

Newton_14
03-01-2009, 09:19 PM
The elbow to Singler was almost identical to the elbow in the recent FSU/Wake game. In that game, they stopped play even though none of the ref's saw the play live. The ref's huddled and watched the replay and then called a flagrant technical and tossed the FSU player out of the game.

With Singler laid out on the floor while play continued, why was there no review of the play on the monitor? This is one of my biggest gripes about ACC refs, there is no consistency in how they handle similar plays.

I agreed with the Tech on Gerald because it is supposed to be a point of emphasis and they are supposed to call a tech for the glare at the opponent, which in Gerald's case is what they did. However, I have seen players glare at their opponent after a dunk or big play numerous times this year with no call. The most recent in the Maryland game. Right after they called the double foul on Paulus and the twerp, the twerp drove the basket on Paulus and scored on him. The twerp then got right in Paulus' face with a stare down. No call. And again, no consistency.

Jarhead
03-01-2009, 09:27 PM
The guy stuck out his elbow and Singler ran into it... he didn't swing it backwards like Singler did to Hansbrough. I didn't think it was vicious, but I don't know what the guy was thinking... it seemed like a really poor attempt to box out.When did Singler do that? I remember Henderson doing it, but it was obviously a result of trying to gain possession of the ball in a scrum on the floor. Hans whasisname was right behind Henderson whose hand slipped off the ball, and with some momentum his elbow walloped whasisname. Henderson had no way of knowing who was behind him.

To the people that can't see the play as it happens, be a good sport and help the economy. Buy yourself a good HDTV and get a good DVR. Then you can watch the play over and over until your biases are proven wrong.

Newton_14
03-01-2009, 09:46 PM
When did Singler do that? I remember Henderson doing it, but it was obviously a result of trying to gain possession of the ball in a scrum on the floor. Hans whasisname was right behind Henderson whose hand slipped off the ball, and with some momentum his elbow walloped whasisname. Henderson had no way of knowing who was behind him.

To the people that can't see the play as it happens, be a good sport and help the economy. Buy yourself a good HDTV and get a good DVR. Then you can watch the play over and over until your biases are proven wrong.

Or watch it over and over until you get the player correct. Dude, it was Singler that threw the elbow in the loose ball scrum with hansflop. Henderson was not in that play.:cool:

ice-9
03-01-2009, 11:15 PM
This definitely looks like an intentional elbow to me. Two reasons:

1. The VT player was looking at Singler as he stuck out his elbow. I.e., he was aiming

2. Only one elbow came out -- this was no boxing out stance or any other defensive stance

Absolutely embarrassing to VT as an institution.

Lord Ash
03-01-2009, 11:26 PM
Or watch it over and over until you get the player correct. Dude, it was Singler that threw the elbow in the loose ball scrum with hansflop. Henderson was not in that play.:cool:

Matter of opinion, for sure. In regular speed it seems Kyle was just grabbing for the ball and his hand slipped. Slow motion can really distort what actually happens. And Henderson was in the play, IIRC... in fact, I think maybe it was he and Kyle actually fighting for the ball, while Tyler just sort of sat there.

flyingdutchdevil
03-01-2009, 11:33 PM
The elbow to Singler was almost identical to the elbow in the recent FSU/Wake game. In that game, they stopped play even though none of the ref's saw the play live. The ref's huddled and watched the replay and then called a flagrant technical and tossed the FSU player out of the game.

With Singler laid out on the floor while play continued, why was there no review of the play on the monitor? This is one of my biggest gripes about ACC refs, there is no consistency in how they handle similar plays.

I agreed with the Tech on Gerald because it is supposed to be a point of emphasis and they are supposed to call a tech for the glare at the opponent, which in Gerald's case is what they did. However, I have seen players glare at their opponent after a dunk or big play numerous times this year with no call. The most recent in the Maryland game. Right after they called the double foul on Paulus and the twerp, the twerp drove the basket on Paulus and scored on him. The twerp then got right in Paulus' face with a stare down. No call. And again, no consistency.

Great post. I absolute agree with everything in here. A surprising unbais post on this thread ;)

dubayuw
03-02-2009, 12:10 AM
I dont think Gerald or Singler on Hansborough was intentional and I don't really think this was intentional either. I watched it a few times and think that this guy just really really sucks at boxing out. Even though it wasn't intentional, IT STILL SHOULD HAVE BEEN A FLAGRANT FOUL. It was extremely dangerous and was very stupid of the Va Tech player... but not intentionl.

Lord Ash
03-02-2009, 12:12 AM
I have to say, the idea of assessing a foul because of a look is about as subjective as you can be. How on earth is that even worded in the rule book? Let me see if I can find it.

Uncle Drew
03-02-2009, 12:52 AM
I have to say, the idea of assessing a foul because of a look is about as subjective as you can be. How on earth is that even worded in the rule book? Let me see if I can find it.

I watched a replay of Geralds dunk and "glare" and he didn't say anything, at least not anything that could be considered English. He was roaring as he dunked and landed, then looked at the VT player while "flexing". As other posters have said, I have seen Duke players and players from every ACC school do the very same thing in games and not get called. But inconsistancy is what I have come to expect from game to game this and the last decade.

But Ash is 100% dead on about even being able to define this in a rule book. Would G have gotten the T if he had not been showing off his physique? If he had flexed for the VT cheerleaders in a flirting manner instead of the VT player would that have been a T? If he had not stared, perhaps closed his eyes and did his immitation of Hans und Frans, would that warren't a T? There have been so many plays called and not called this season where things were left up to the refs to determine intent.

moonpie23
03-02-2009, 01:04 AM
this one bothers me, but not nearly as much as the pic on the Nolan thread showing the cheap pick by the MD player LEANING In and sliding to the left..

that DID turn out to be frickin' serious...


frickin' neal needs to have his frick-frack frapped....

Uncle Drew
03-02-2009, 08:21 AM
this one bothers me, but not nearly as much as the pic on the Nolan thread showing the cheap pick by the MD player LEANING In and sliding to the left..

that DID turn out to be frickin' serious...


frickin' neal needs to have his frick-frack frapped....

I gotta respectfully disagree. Screens are part of the game, especially in an attempt to assist the point guard getting past half court. As a point guard (which I played) you have to be aware of the situation you're in. Neal may have leaned into Nolan but an objective person could say he was just getting ready for the impact he knew was coming. I've watched the replay of that incident seveal times and people have called out Zoubek for not calling out the screen. Frankly I don't see how Nolan didn't see Neal setting the screen, but then I have really good periphreal vision. God knows I hope Nolan ends up being okay and after three concussions if anyone can sympathize it's me. But comparing that with an elbow aimed at a guys head isn't the same.

For what it's worth the positioning of Neals' arms folded is really the only true negative I can say about that play. (The ref was right on top of it to determine whether it was a moving screen.) Different coaches teach screens and taking charges differently, both are about positioning. But refs often make their judgement calls on how a player holds their arms in both situations.

bjornolf
03-02-2009, 08:52 AM
People are absolutely entitled to their opinion. However, I think any argument that this elbow wasn't intentional with an intent to injure is lost by just watching all parts of the replay closely. Watch his head, he is staring down Kyle the entire time. He adjusts his body and elbow at the last second to ensure solid contact. He had PLENTY of time to get his butt in front of Kyle if he wanted to box out, but he didn't bother. He didn't crouch and get ready. The ball has already hit the rim and one of his teammates is already gathering himself to jump for the rebound when he finally turns around AFTER contact.

As a guy whose main talent in basketball is rebounding, I know a little bit about boxing out for a rebound. If you're boxing out, you get your knees bent, your head on the ball, and you put both arms out. You get parallel to the basket, not the lane (Unless you're right under the basket on the side, which makes you parallel to both, but that isn't the case here). If your man isn't on your butt, you might then glance quickly back to see where your opponent is and readjust your position to get in his way, then look back at the rim.

This guy is skipping UP the lane away from the basket. He doesn't even know a shot has gone up. Pause it at :04. Both other Hokies in the frame are watching the shot go up. The guy who throws the elbow is sizing up Singler the entire time. He doesn't face the basket until Singler's body knocks him that way at :06, AFTER the ball has already hit the rim. He's completely parallel to the lane and facing away from the basket, towards Singler, when the elbow connects (a little later in :06). EVERY other player in the frame, duke and VT, including Singler, is looking at the ball on the rim. HE is looking at his elbow in Singler's throat. How can you rebound a ball if you aren't even looking for it?

Anyway, if you watch the replay at speed and don't watch the Hokie's head, I can see how you'd think it was just horrible rebounding technique. But if you watch his body in the first few seconds, then pause at :04 and :06, it's pretty clear what his intent was. To put his elbow in Singler's throat.

My wife, a Hokie alumna, watched this video and was disgusted. She said "that guy should be kicked off the team!" Her words, not mine.

bjornolf
03-02-2009, 09:04 AM
Neal may have leaned into Nolan but an objective person could say he was just getting ready for the impact he knew was coming. I've watched the replay of that incident seveal times and people have called out Zoubek for not calling out the screen. Frankly I don't see how Nolan didn't see Neal setting the screen, but then I have really good periphreal vision.

Watch the replay in slow motion. I think Nolan DOES know he's there. Watch his body position. His left shoulder is rolled in and he ducks his head as he goes by, which is actually what gets his head hit by Neal's upper arm. He SAW where Neal was and moved to avoid Neal by trying to curl around him. If Neal doesn't lean in so far, he misses entirely. This wasn't a lean to absorb contact, it was a lean to CREATE contact. Look at Neal's body in the photo. The BACK of his head is in FRONT of his toes. You don't lean in that far to absorb contact with a smaller player, plus, he's contacting the very SIDE of Nolan's shoulder as Nolan runs right by him. Smith and Hayes are running ACROSS the lane at a VERY slight up-court angle when contact is made, then Hayes turns up-court. Neal is standing parallel to the foul line. By this positioning, The only place Smith would have run into Neal was directly in the right shoulder, NOT the middle of the chest. Hayes is just turning up-court IN the photo, but he hasn't when contact is initiated, which is just before the photo. You can see he's just planting his right foot to turn up-court in the photo. I think Nolan DID see him and tried to avoid him, and actually ended up making the contact worse. If Neal's arms are down and he doesn't lean, his screen misses completely. I don't think Neal was trying to hurt him. I think this is a classic moving screen. He realized at the last second that he was going to miss, so he leaned in to make contact. Just my opinion.

KenTankerous
03-02-2009, 10:10 AM
Regardless of the intent or flagrancy of the elbow, this no-call speaks to a troubling turn in college ball toward a much more physical game. How does a player go down that hard after the ball has been gathered in and the refs first don't even notice, then let play continue?

Too much hockey in my basketball of late, too much hockey.

Chard
03-02-2009, 10:18 AM
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.

BlueintheFace
03-02-2009, 10:56 AM
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 have thought about it, and I do not want Duke to say a darn thing. Va Tech has Carolina at home next. Perhaps the Duke staff has had the same thought...

Chard
03-02-2009, 10:57 AM
I have thought about it, and I do not want Duke to say a darn thing. Va Tech has Carolina at home next. Perhaps the Duke staff has had the same thought...

Well....okay, wait until after that game. :)

slower
03-02-2009, 11:29 AM
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
03-02-2009, 11:42 AM
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
03-02-2009, 11:48 AM
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
03-02-2009, 11:50 AM
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
03-02-2009, 12:00 PM
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
03-02-2009, 12:09 PM
That was in the Miami game, and it was DeQuan Jones that elbowed Paulus after a steal and lay-up.

77devil
03-02-2009, 12:35 PM
[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
03-02-2009, 12:53 PM
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 (http://image.cdnl3.xosnetwork.com/pics24/800/HM/HMKOAYUQYRMRDPO.20090301002709.jpg), 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
03-02-2009, 12:54 PM
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. :rolleyes:

DukeUsul
03-02-2009, 01:01 PM
You can't see anybody's feet or the endline in this photo (http://image.cdnl3.xosnetwork.com/pics24/800/HM/HMKOAYUQYRMRDPO.20090301002709.jpg), 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
03-02-2009, 01:04 PM
I just captured this (poorly) from my DVR recording of the game. Mr. Toe, meet Mr. Line.

Good work.

alteran
03-02-2009, 01:11 PM
Naaaaaaaaa, it's only paranoia if nobody is shooting at you. :rolleyes:

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

(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
03-02-2009, 01:14 PM
In my family, we express the same sentiment, saying, "it's not paranoia when they're really trying to get you." :D

(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
03-02-2009, 01:23 PM
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
03-02-2009, 01:56 PM
You can't see anybody's feet or the endline in this photo (http://image.cdnl3.xosnetwork.com/pics24/800/HM/HMKOAYUQYRMRDPO.20090301002709.jpg), 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
03-02-2009, 02:06 PM
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
03-02-2009, 03:05 PM
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
03-02-2009, 03:42 PM
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
03-02-2009, 03:43 PM
You can't see anybody's feet or the endline in this photo (http://image.cdnl3.xosnetwork.com/pics24/800/HM/HMKOAYUQYRMRDPO.20090301002709.jpg), 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
03-02-2009, 03:51 PM
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. :D

FireOgilvie
03-02-2009, 04:04 PM
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. :D

Here's another look. They tied up the ball. ESPN360 is useful.

DukeUsul
03-02-2009, 04:14 PM
Here's another look. They tied up the ball. ESPN360 is useful.

Here's a shot demonstrating CTO's point. This is the foul that is shown in the linked photo from cruxer (note the head lock from Thompson and Bell on the backside). It was correctly called a foul and Kyle took two shots. The photo from cruxer isn't the same play as what FO just attached or what I previously put up (toe on the line). Two different plays.

FireOgilvie
03-02-2009, 04:21 PM
Here's a shot demonstrating CTO's point. This is the foul that is shown in the linked photo from cruxer (note the head lock from Thompson and Bell on the backside). It was correctly called a foul and Kyle took two shots. The photo from cruxer isn't the same play as what FO just attached or what I previously put up (toe on the line). Two different plays.

You're right. I was never talking about cruxer's photo in the first place... I was talking about yours and confused you and cruxer.

cruxer
03-02-2009, 04:48 PM
Here's a shot demonstrating CTO's point. This is the foul that is shown in the linked photo from cruxer (note the head lock from Thompson and Bell on the backside). It was correctly called a foul and Kyle took two shots. The photo from cruxer isn't the same play as what FO just attached or what I previously put up (toe on the line). Two different plays.

Yep I agree. The pic I posted was not the jumpball, though I was pretty sure that was a foul too! I just mistook the pic I saw in the AP stream for that situation. I didn't DVR the game, but I'll have to remember to use ESPN360 to look up these controversial plays!

I apologize for the confusion and thanks to everyone for the correction.

-c

Chard
03-02-2009, 10:44 PM
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?

No. I don't want Duke to stoop to that level a la Temple a few years ago. I don't want it to come to that. That is why I think there should be a public outcry. The ACC likes to run commercials touting the sportsmanship in the league. That play was down right dangerous. Singler did lay on the floor until play was stopped. Pure luck that it didn't do some serious damage. The elbow is the hardest part of the human body. I'm picking my words very carefully when I speak of this incident. Throwing a frustrated elbow is one thing. Sizing up your target and delivering the blow is another. That type of play doesn't belong in the ACC.

Oh, P.S. Kudos to DBR for posting the video on the front page. Way to go!

slower
03-02-2009, 11:07 PM
No. I don't want Duke to stoop to that level a la Temple a few years ago. I don't want it to come to that. That is why I think there should be a public outcry. The ACC likes to run commercials touting the sportsmanship in the league. That play was down right dangerous. Singler did lay on the floor until play was stopped. Pure luck that it didn't do some serious damage. The elbow is the hardest part of the human body. I'm picking my words very carefully when I speak of this incident. Throwing a frustrated elbow is one thing. Sizing up your target and delivering the blow is another. That type of play doesn't belong in the ACC.

Oh, P.S. Kudos to DBR for posting the video on the front page. Way to go!


Of course, I don't SERIOUSLY want it to come to that. But it seems that the trend these days is toward MORE violent play, not less. And Duke seems to be a particular target of teams that want to, and are allowed to, try to intimidate us. It's scary to see the near-bloodlust that seems to overcome "fans" of some of the more questionable programs (MD, VT and FSU immediately come to mind, and others are not far behind). I will say, to their credit, that most Tarhole fans are at least civilized.

DukeFanInTerpLand
03-02-2009, 11:56 PM
As with most things in life, it going to take something really egregious to wake people up. The fact that Kyle is tough as nails "hurt" him here, as others have said. This is not the first time that he has gotten up when others would have stayed down.

captmojo
03-03-2009, 09:15 AM
I just captured this (poorly) from my DVR recording of the game.




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

I believe there is sufficient evidence to investigate the possibility of conspiracy to try and take Singler out of the contest Saturday. This is not an accusation, just a statement that the game deserves further review to check the validity of a hypothesis. These were NOT the only questionable plays I recall seeing to lead my thoughts in this direction.

If you still have time (does weather still permit?) and you have yet to erase game film, here's one you can look at as well. Check a foul called on Kyle during the first half. I can't recall whether it was his first or second of the game. He was defending on an inside shot. The shot was scored and Kyle was called for the foul. The shooter's hand seemed to deliberately come down after follow-through and slap Kyle across his face. :mad: This made me come out of my chair! :eek: It takes quite a bit to make me do that any more.

I think he took a very vicious physical beating during this game and I would not be too surprised to find that it might have been intended to cause him to be eliminated from play.

bird
03-03-2009, 04:20 PM
Rant begins:

One of the worst aspects of expansion was letting Va. Tech into the conference. In football and in basketball Va. Tech has brought a punk attitude to its Duke games, characterized by enough cheap shots to constitute a pattern.

One image of K during the game clearly showed some sort of fluid on the back of his jacket; I was wondering if it was accidental spillage or something that was thrown.

Now we hear of a thrown bottle.

The one saving grace is that Va. Tech fans / players act equally if not more poorly in other contexts, particularly the W.Va. football rivalry.

Rant over.

DukeUsul
03-03-2009, 05:06 PM
I believe there is sufficient evidence to investigate the possibility of conspiracy to try and take Singler out of the contest Saturday. This is not an accusation, just a statement that the game deserves further review to check the validity of a hypothesis. These were NOT the only questionable plays I recall seeing to lead my thoughts in this direction.

If you still have time (does weather still permit?) and you have yet to erase game film, here's one you can look at as well. Check a foul called on Kyle during the first half. I can't recall whether it was his first or second of the game. He was defending on an inside shot. The shot was scored and Kyle was called for the foul. The shooter's hand seemed to deliberately come down after follow-through and slap Kyle across his face. :mad: This made me come out of my chair! :eek: It takes quite a bit to make me do that any more.

I think he took a very vicious physical beating during this game and I would not be too surprised to find that it might have been intended to cause him to be eliminated from play.

You are very possibly right. Although it's not totally clear. It was Singler's second foul (against Thompson) at 8:21 in the first half. Thompson goes up with both hands on the ball and his follow through gets Kyle in the face. What looks odd about it is that it's both arms that come together and get the face. If you bring both your arms down after shooting, it seems very odd that you would actually draw them together and hit the same thing. If he had brought them down and only one hit Kyle's face, it'd easy to pass it off as inadvertent. The fact that he brought them both together and they hit Kyle makes it look either purposeful or at the very least peculiar.

Thompson does follow the ball to the rim with his eyes, so it doesn't look like he was looking at Kyle as he did it (like Bell was later). So maybe it was just accidental. It's just hard to say.

I'm not sure a still capture from my TV screen will be of much help to demonstrate it.