PDA

View Full Version : Hendo to be suspended?



Pages : [1] 2

godukecom
03-04-2007, 05:19 PM
It didnt look intentional to me, but cbs said it would be a suspension...
???

34dukegal
03-04-2007, 05:21 PM
We posted at the same time. I can not believe it - it's just not right.

AluminumDuke
03-04-2007, 05:23 PM
Seems like some questionable officiating to me.

And how about those classy wine and cheese fans making obscene gestures at Henderson on his way out?

devildownunder
03-04-2007, 05:23 PM
All right, I'm on radio and i'm certainly not going to take their word for anything, what happened in the incident that resulted in the ejection?

Also, does that carry an automatic suspension for the first round of the ACC tournament?

It's really a shame something like this has happened. We would never have been in this game without GH. Now this foolishness will overshadow his offense.

sbpollo
03-04-2007, 05:24 PM
Wonder if it is reviewable?

godukecom
03-04-2007, 05:24 PM
well i dont understand that at all, but it must have hurt alot, he had tears in his eyes...
should NOT be a suspension, and iirc the suspension is not issued from the game anyway; it is from the leauge office (duke-unc brawl in 03?)

Tappan Zee Devil
03-04-2007, 05:25 PM
is not that they disqualifed Gerald (if you only looked at it at full speed, it may not be unreasonable - although even Billy Thacker said said it was unwarrented)
What pi**es me off is that, with a minute or so left and up by double digits, Carolina was not trying to run the clock out - they were trying to run up the score. I hope that is something we rember

Jim

DukeBlood
03-04-2007, 05:25 PM
I love Duke, and i believe Henderson will be a Star!

But that was a brutal foul, I dont believe it was intentional by any means. However, I cant blame the Refs for making the call they did.

That was pretty brutal of the UNC fans, but if someone broke one our better players nose, I dont think i would treat him very nice either..

Go Duke!

VaDukie
03-04-2007, 05:26 PM
That was an awful call. If he wanted to do it on purpose, he would have used his forearm. Now Henderson gets unfairly labeled as a thug for his career.

Ralph-Wiggum
03-04-2007, 05:27 PM
As a UNC fan, there were 4 things I didn't like about that play (other than Hansbrough's broken nose of course):

1). Hansbrough shouldn't have been in the game.

2). Hansbrough shouldn't have gone up for a dunk.

3). It was an extremely hard foul, but I'm not sure if it was intentional.

4). Dewey Burke should've taken the free-throws, damn it!

CDu
03-04-2007, 05:27 PM
is not that they disqualifed Gerald (if you only looked at it at full speed, it may not be unreasonable - although even Billy Thacker said said it was unwarrented)
What pi**es me off is that, with a minute or so left and up by double digits, Carolina was not trying to run the clock out - they were trying to run up the score. I hope that is something we rember

Jim

Yeah, nothing but class down the stretch from UNC. Playing the starters up 12 with 15 seconds to go. And jacking up a three up 14 with 12 to go. Nice.

willywoody
03-04-2007, 05:28 PM
i liked the way all our asst coaches went to the locker room with gerald. definitely a show of protest at the ejection by the duke coaches.

TheDuke11
03-04-2007, 05:28 PM
does anyone remember the obvious flagrent punch tyler threw in the ncsu game and was not suspended?

Fish80
03-04-2007, 05:29 PM
At least the announcers (packer) did a decent job describing the incident. It did not look intentional, G. was making a play on the ball. Hopefully the league will take that view when they review the tape.

devilsadvocate85
03-04-2007, 05:29 PM
What's he doing running up his stats up 12 with 14 seconds left. Hansbrough was banging inside with a walkon who fouled him and Henderson wasn't going to let him get another dunk. That was a complete accident and a ridiculous ruling by the officials.

weezie
03-04-2007, 05:29 PM
Henderson was not intentionally going after Tyler.
Karl Hesse just caved to Roy's whining. Terrible officiating.
The league will probably screw us though.
Poor Gerald, he played his heart out and he was obviously upset.

dahntaysdawg
03-04-2007, 05:29 PM
I love Duke, and i believe Henderson will be a Star!

But that was a brutal foul, I dont believe it was intentional by any means. However, I cant blame the Refs for making the call they did.

That was pretty brutal of the UNC fans, but if someone broke one our better players nose, I dont think i would treat him very nice either..

Go Duke!

Henderson didn't break his nose, Hansbrough broke his own nose by jumping into Hendersons elbow...and if roy wants to avoid situations like this maybe he should leave his best players off the floor up 12 with under a minute to play!!!

DU82
03-04-2007, 05:30 PM
Once again Karl Hess has his head up his, er, collar. How do you throw a punch with an open hand?

devildownunder
03-04-2007, 05:30 PM
Yeah, nothing but class down the stretch from UNC. Playing the starters up 12 with 15 seconds to go. And jacking up a three up 14 with 12 to go. Nice.


No quarter will be asked...or given. They can do whatever they want because I have no interest in us letting up on them when we get the chance either. That's just the way it is.

cameroncrazie922
03-04-2007, 05:30 PM
no way that was intentional- his head was turned away from hansbrough. absolutely awful call.

CDu
03-04-2007, 05:31 PM
As a UNC fan, there were 4 things I didn't like about that play (other than Hansbrough's broken nose of course):

1). Hansbrough shouldn't have been in the game.

2). Hansbrough shouldn't have gone up for a dunk.

3). It was an extremely hard foul, but I'm not sure if it was intentional.

4). Dewey Burke should've taken the free-throws, damn it!

Agree on all points. I'll add this: that's why you dribble out the clock at the end. I don't think he meant to hit Hansbrough's face, but if you dribble out the clock, you don't encounter that situation.

Law Talking Guy
03-04-2007, 05:31 PM
Is there an automatic ACC rule/suspension for a "combative" or flagrant foul? That's what Nantz supposedly said the officials ruled it was.

DukeBlood
03-04-2007, 05:32 PM
Hans never should of been in the game at that point. I agree 100%.

However, Hans Jumped into Hendo's elbow? Be real now.

I dont believe it was intentional! But it was a hard foul, If someone fouled one our guys like that i would hope he would of been ejected and suspended as well(even if it wasnt intentional).

Lets hope the ACC reviews this and does not suspend G. Henderson.

Fish80
03-04-2007, 05:33 PM
It's reverse discrimination. The zebras are afraid to make any call that might possibly be interpreted as favoring Duke. In this situation the official fear forced them to make an official mistake. Hess should psycho analyze himself.

Tappan Zee Devil
03-04-2007, 05:35 PM
No quarter will be asked...or given. They can do whatever they want because I have no interest in us letting up on them when we get the chance either. That's just the way it is.
You do NOT try to run the score up with a double digit lead in the last minute.
You do NOT try to go up for a dunk with a double digit lead in the last minute.

You run the clock out. I hope we remember this big time!

Jim

OZZIE4DUKE
03-04-2007, 05:35 PM
for saying repeatedly that it wasn't an intentional foul. Honestly, I can't believe Packer was that supportive.

I do hope that after further review from the league office that G isn't suspended for our next game, but I'm not holding my breath.

And yeah, why was Hansblahblah on the court with 15 seconds to go?

CDu
03-04-2007, 05:35 PM
No quarter will be asked...or given. They can do whatever they want because I have no interest in us letting up on them when we get the chance either. That's just the way it is.

And yet, we always do dribble out the clock in the final minutes. It's a difference in philosophy, I understand. But one way to avoid potentially fiery incidents is to not try to run up the score against a rival when the game is clearly over.

dukelion
03-04-2007, 05:36 PM
Roy Williams ... was just enjoying the win so much and was actually trying to run the score up.

K would NEVER do that.....NEVER

We had a freaking walk-on guarding Hansbrough with 20 seconds left!

Henderson is my new favorite Blue Devil......he wasn't going to give anything easy to Carolina.

Carolina has no -one to blame but themselves.....and Roy

Spret42
03-04-2007, 05:37 PM
They pretty much had to call a foul and Henderson has to be suspended.

For sure their was absolutely NO intent on Hendersons part.

However, it doesn't matter if he did it on purpose. Every guy is responsible for his body and when he throws a blow, even one that was a result of making a basketball play and had no intent, and it results in something like that the player is called for a foul and suspended.

Without that kind of rule, players would play with a kind of reckless abandon that results in more incidents like that one. By suspending Henderson, all players are reminded that they must play in control at all times.

devildownunder
03-04-2007, 05:38 PM
You do NOT try to run the score up with a double digit lead in the last minute.
You do NOT try to go up for a dunk with a double digit lead in the last minute.

You run the clock out. I hope we remember this big time!

Jim

I hope so, too, but only so the guys are even more motivated to win. For anyone else, my feelings would be different but when playing those people, If I'm up 50 with 30 seconds left I'm going to try to win the game by 60.

BigWayne
03-04-2007, 05:39 PM
The whole reason the play/foul came out so awkward is because Johnson hacks Hansbrough first and does get the ball and the ball starts going down. Henderson turns his body in the air as his head clearly follows the flight of the ball. This is why his elbow comes around/down and hits Hansbrough. He is clearly not looking at Hansbrough when he hits him.

The league office should see that this is clearly not intentional and will probably not suspend Henderson.

On the officials part, it is not necessarily a bad move to eject Henderson at the time, the outcome of the game no longer in question at that point. From watching on TV, had they not ejected him to appease the brewing unruly crowd, they could have had a riot on their hands.

Plenty of classless behavior from the crowd visible on TV. Thing that struck me as odd was the male UNC cheerleaders high fiving when Henderson walked out.

Ima Facultiwyfe
03-04-2007, 05:40 PM
They've just created a beautiful monster. What goes around comes around. G will own them all before he's done.

Love, Ima:)

PS Never been prouder of Duke and everybody's demeanor.

Tappan Zee Devil
03-04-2007, 05:41 PM
That is not the way we play the game.

That is not how Dule plays the game

ahh - Something about winning but not obviously and deliberately embarassing out opponent.

I hope we remember this

Roy (and his team) showed a distinct lack of class!

devildownunder
03-04-2007, 05:41 PM
for saying repeatedly that it wasn't an intentional foul. Honestly, I can't believe Packer was that supportive.

I do hope that after further review from the league office that G isn't suspended for our next game, but I'm not holding my breath.

And yeah, why was Hansblahblah on the court with 15 seconds to go?


Everyone in the ACC seems to think Packer is out to get their team due to some decades-old grudge. I've never understood it. I think Packer is just blunt and honest. I also think his analysis is almost always spot-on AND focused on what is at hand. If it was, as people are saying, so obvious that the foul wasn't intentional I have no trouble believing that Packer was all over it.

weezie
03-04-2007, 05:42 PM
Come on now, Karl just wanted to make sure Roy would invite him into his foursome at the next golf tournament.

Lulu
03-04-2007, 05:43 PM
It was indeed surprising, but it gave him a chance to rip the officials, and criticizing is what he loves best after all...

No one has mentioned that the announcer (Nantz maybe?) said on the air that the official confirmed to him that Henderson would be suspended one game for a combative foul. I can't find the ACC rulebook, but can anyone confirm if the officials on the floor can have the final say in a matter like this? or does the league office review it later? It sounded pretty definite hearing it from the announcer that an official confirmed the suspension, and I've replayed it and listened again.

Also, Henderson may be incredibly athletic, but I still doubt that was in any way intentional. First of all, it simply happened too fast, unlike the slo-mo replay. Second, the ball popped out while Hendo was already in the air and he clearly started turning away; the ball darting off in another direction once you're already in the air can certainly startle you and make you twist and react oddly.

devildownunder
03-04-2007, 05:43 PM
They pretty much had to call a foul and Henderson has to be suspended.

For sure their was absolutely NO intent on Hendersons part.

However, it doesn't matter if he did it on purpose. Every guy is responsible for his body and when he throws a blow, even one that was a result of making a basketball play and had no intent, and it results in something like that the player is called for a foul and suspended.

Without that kind of rule, players would play with a kind of reckless abandon that results in more incidents like that one. By suspending Henderson, all players are reminded that they must play in control at all times.


Players get fouls for unintentional blows, even ejections, for the very reasons you state but they rarely get suspended for those types of things unless there is evidence of malicious intent.

365Duke
03-04-2007, 05:44 PM
says that it is unfortunate that hansbrough was even in the game. after a smart*** question from a reporter asking"is there a protocol for putting in the walk on's at a certain time". K said "no, not unless its in one of your books, im not blaming anybody, im just saying that they were up big with 20 sec. to go and still had their starters in the game, but im not blaming anybody"

I love it!!!

rthomas
03-04-2007, 05:49 PM
Just out of curiosity about how UNC radio plays the G thing, I'm listening to the awful speeches by the UNC seniors.

The announcer says TH is on the bench listening with cotton in his nose.

Coach K sounds remorseful but says there was absolutely no intent by G. Says he doesn't understand why the officials suspends G for a game and league should review it. but (LIKE A MAN) Coach K takes responsibility.

A-Tex Devil
03-04-2007, 05:51 PM
So I'll drop my 2 cents here.

K and Hendu showed a lot of class in just letting it go. We need Hendu back on Thursday though so I hope we take that tape to the ACC 10 minutes ago. And if Roy had any backbone he'd see the tape and tell Swofford and Barakat that this doesn't merit a suspension. Hopefully Hendu not fighting back won't be seen as contrition for an intentional act. It wasn't.

I understand why Hanslblahblah was pissed. He has no idea what happened. None. He got smashed in the nose - we'd all react that way (maybe with less tears). But whatever... as others have said he's taking it to the hole with 10 seconds left, he should expect to be fouled. The elbow to the nose was an accident. He sure as hell better let this go, but I doubt he will. If he wants to go up at that point in that game, he should expect to get fouled. If Hendu dropped the Macho Man elbow into him, then bad Hendu -- then he gets suspended. But that's not what happened. So Psycho-T and Hole fans ----- let it go. (the hole fans at our bar seemed fairly reasonable, but not so on the internets it looks like.)

Hendu's suspension better get overturned or this is absolute horsecrap. I cannot believe the refs made a decision resulting in automatic suspension based on that tape. Just awful and no excuse. If it deserved suspension, the ACC could have take care of it. Let's just hope the ACC steps in and makes the right decision. I'm not crossing my fingers.

Again -- I'll be interested to see what Roy and Tyler have to say after the tape. If they claim dirty play then screw them. We'll see them next Sunday if they can fricking get that far.

I'm am really angry at those refs right now and will be even more if the 'Holes exacerbate this. I'll eat crow if Gerald comes out and said it was intentional, but I just don't see it.

Lulu
03-04-2007, 05:53 PM
They pretty much had to call a foul and Henderson has to be suspended.

For sure their was absolutely NO intent on Hendersons part.

However, it doesn't matter if he did it on purpose. Every guy is responsible for his body and when he throws a blow, even one that was a result of making a basketball play and had no intent, and it results in something like that the player is called for a foul and suspended.

Without that kind of rule, players would play with a kind of reckless abandon that results in more incidents like that one. By suspending Henderson, all players are reminded that they must play in control at all times.

That is absurd. There is no rule stating a player must play in control or else be suspended if anyone gets hurt. Otherwise we'd have new suspensions at every other loose ball. Intent is pretty much all that matters. If play was dead it would be a different matter, but it was not.

Oriole Way
03-04-2007, 05:55 PM
Roy Williams ...was just enjoying the win so much and was actually trying to run the score up.

K would NEVER do that.....NEVER

We had a freaking walk-on guarding Hansbrough with 20 seconds left!

Henderson is my new favorite Blue Devil......he wasn't going to give anything easy to Carolina.

Carolina has no -one to blame but themselves.....and Roy

Give me a break... Duke has been in the same position many times, and left star players in the game with seconds left to go and a big lead.

I do think Henderson's apparent suspension is unwarranted, and I hope the play can be reviewed or appealed. But blaming UNC for Hansbrough being on the floor when Duke has also regularly left starters in much longer than necessary is unreasonable.

rthomas
03-04-2007, 05:55 PM
UNC basketball radio is saying "there was no malicious intent, but G was out of control". but commented on: Coach K saying TH sould not be in the game at that point.

UNC radio isn't focused on this as much as this board is.

Tappan Zee Devil
03-04-2007, 05:56 PM
they were up big with 20 sec. to go and still had their starters in the game

I said that in another thread - and (no surprise K also noticed)

I HOPE WE REMEMBER

365Duke
03-04-2007, 05:56 PM
That is absurd. There is no rule stating a player must play in control or else be suspended if anyone gets hurt. Otherwise we'd have new suspensions at every other loose ball. Intent is pretty much all that matters. If play was dead it would be a different matter, but it was not.

Agreed Lulu

dukewray
03-04-2007, 05:57 PM
I know a previous thread got locked, but I like the physical play of Gerald. It's about time someone stepped up and showed some cojones and made a hard foul. I seriously doubt that G wanted to hurt Hansbrough, but basketball isn't golf.....there is contact, people get elbowed, people lose teeth, people get trampled during a charge.....had Hansbrough not bled....G would have gotten a flagrant and that's it. Just because it's Tyler "Golden Child" Hansbrough....the G will probably be used as an example by the league. Who cares? It's about darn time someone comitted a hard foul to keep an opposing player from scoring. What the h*ll was Hansbrough in the game for with 14 secs left up by 14???? Was Good Ol' Roy trying to run the score up? hmmm.....I don't wish ill on anyone.....but ol' Hansblahblah had it coming. Gerald's my new favorite player!!!! Career high baby!

Tappan Zee Devil
03-04-2007, 05:58 PM
Yeah - they won (it is easy to be magnaneous (sp) after the fact

and we din't try to run up the score against them

Jim

rthomas
03-04-2007, 05:59 PM
Woody Guthrie says TH says that his nose is not broken.

DukeUsul
03-04-2007, 06:00 PM
Looking at the rules, it looks to me like the ruling has to be "fighting" to cause an ejection.

A single technical foul does not result in ejection. The second one does. So that can't be it.

Intentional technical fouls by the way are dead-ball only fouls (Rule 10, Sec 15) so it's not that either.

A flagrant contact technical foul (Rule 10, Sec 13, Art 3) is for "severely or excessively contacting an opponent when the ball is dead."

So that's not it. Other than fighting, that's the only contact-oriented flagrant foul rule I can find. The other flagrant foul rules are all non-contact fouls.

Ok so it's gotta be fighting. Let's look at the rules.


Section 17. Fighting
Art. 1. Fighting, as defined in Rule 4-23, includes, but is not limited to:
a. An attempt to strike an opponent with the arms, hands, legs or feet.
b. An attempt to punch or kick an opponent, regardless of whether
contact is made.
c. An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsportsmanlike act toward an opponent that causes the opponent to retaliate by fighting.

As determined by the officials, fighting is a flagrant foul and can be either
personal (during a live ball) or technical (during a dead ball).

So they've obviously ruled that he attempted to strike an opponent .... etc. Note the rule obviously requires intent. It does not allow a "hard foul" without intent to count as fighting.

Penalties (Sec 19):


Art. 2. The first time an individual participates in a fight during the season (including exhibition games), the individual shall be suspended from
participating in the teamís next regular-season game (not an exhibition
contest), including tournament competition.

Art. 3. When an individual participates in a second fight, that individual
shall be suspended for the remainder of the season, including tournament
competition.

Art. 6. Any team member or other bench personnel under suspension
for fighting shall not be in the teamís bench area.

And most importantly:


Art. 8. After a game, conference offices or the assigning authority may correct an error in who was involved in a fight but cannot change an
officialís ruling that a fight took place or lessen the severity of the penalty.

So G is gonna get screwed.

SMO
03-04-2007, 06:00 PM
If you happen to poke a guy in the eye trying to block a shot and get suspended that would be kind of silly. What if someone rolls an ankle stepping on your foot? Sorry son, we'll see you in a game or two. Equally absurd.

Les Diables Bleus
03-04-2007, 06:02 PM
While I am 100% positive that the foul was not intentional, we should realize that if Tyler Hansbrough committed a foul like that against Gerald Henderson at Cameron, we would want him suspended too.

We shouldn't let this incident get the better of us. Still, I don't think the foul is worth a suspension, but there you have it. Sometimes, unfair stuff comes at us, and we have to take it. No team will ever get all the calls their way.

Hansbrough has a right to be mad, but everyone needs to just let this go. I am glad that his nose isn't broken, and Duke will get revenge in the ACC tournament.

Tappan Zee Devil
03-04-2007, 06:03 PM
OK Give an example

When did Duke try to run up the score? Give a specific example
Same situation (whoever we have in the game) we are try to dribble out the clock - not trying to run up the score

Cite a specific example

DukeFan69
03-04-2007, 06:05 PM
Dude, I love you! You completely hit the nail on the head! Why was Hansbrough in the game at that point? He totally deserved what he got. It is obvious that Gerald did not mean to hurt him, but because it was Hansbrough, Gerald gets suspended for a game. If it was Terry, Wright, or Lawson, there would be no suspension. But because it was good ol' boy Tyler, he has to sit out the State game. I hope the ACC steps in and looks at this and sees the truth! I have lost all respect for Tyler, because apparently he can dish it out but he can't take it! As for Roy, it sure looks to me like he ran up the score, but K won't say anything because he has too much classy and dignity. Bottom line: Hansbrough got what he deserved! Go Gerald Henderson!!

vango
03-04-2007, 06:07 PM
At first I thought he did it on purpose. But as I watched it two things told me it was accidental:

*He didn't go straight into him or his face.

*He swiped down in a motion towards the ball.

This was an unfortunate thing. I agree that now for the next 3 years he's going to be labled as a dirty player - at least to the UNC folks. I'd be really curious as to whether Ellington comes to his friends side or keeps "mum" on it.

Hansborough is a physical player. He's not dirty to me. His style of play is that he forces his will on other players. It's physical. You have to react to it and give it back or he'll force that will and he'll have the upper hand not only for a play, but a game, a season, and a career.

I've seen him get in some testy situations. I think he keeps his calm pretty well. But he has to know it, agressive and physical play, is what he gives and is what he's going to get back. When that happens and people miss - it's gonna hurt. I think that is what happened here.

It will be interesting to see what K says, what Henderson says, as with Hansborough and Ellington. Not to mention the league itself.

Lulu
03-04-2007, 06:07 PM
Henderson will receive a one game suspension. Seems DukeUsul already figured this out though so thanks... ESPN also didn't really give their input about whether it seems an accident or not.

SMO
03-04-2007, 06:07 PM
When you add:

T "I'm a tough guy" + Run up the score Roy + less than 20 to play + I'm going to dunk on a walk-on....then what do you expect? A hard foul, which is what it was and the result was more than UNC bargained for.

rsvman
03-04-2007, 06:07 PM
He's not saying we try to run up the score, he's saying that K leaves his starters in a lot, which is true.

Try to keep up.

FishStick
03-04-2007, 06:08 PM
As a UNC fan, there were 4 things I didn't like about that play (other than Hansbrough's broken nose of course):

1). Hansbrough shouldn't have been in the game.

2). Hansbrough shouldn't have gone up for a dunk.

3). It was an extremely hard foul, but I'm not sure if it was intentional.

4). Dewey Burke should've taken the free-throws, damn it!

ralph, thanks for the levelheaded response. I really wish we could take that play back.

I also wish the fans at the game were more like you. I was spit at for wearing a duke shirt when T was hammered. Luckily they missed.

dukewray
03-04-2007, 06:09 PM
I totally agree. Roy was just trying to show up Coach K for his 100th victory. Plain and simple. You guys can block this if you want....but you know it's true too. And if you didn't crack a smile at Hansbrough bleeding and crying......you're not a TRUE Duke fan. A true Duke fan HATES all things UNC....period.

A-Tex Devil
03-04-2007, 06:09 PM
I agree. We've certainly kept our starters in as long.

But if Hansblahblah is going to go back up at that point to pad stats instead of kick it back out to his guards to end the game, I have no problem with a hard foul. Gotta stick up for your team. It sucks about the unintentional elbow, but he put himself in that position by trying to run it up with 3 Duke guys hanging on him.

superdave
03-04-2007, 06:10 PM
Free Gerald Henderson!!!

If Hansorough had been fouled intentionally, dont you think UNC players would have defended him? Or not because they are not a good Team and have no heart.

feldspar
03-04-2007, 06:13 PM
So G is gonna get screwed.

Well...I was with you all the way up until this point. How is G getting screwed? Just because, in your opinion, you don't think it was intentional?

jkidd31
03-04-2007, 06:16 PM
I turned the game off to watch the golf playoff and missed this. First I'd question why Henderson was in the game at this point, second WTF is TH doing in the game? If you are a starter trying to dunk at that point in time instead of running the clock out you are fair game to people trying to make a play. As long as Henderson didn't clothesline him props for taking some pride and not rolling over.

dukewray
03-04-2007, 06:17 PM
I hope Duke blows out NCSU. Sorry Wolfpack fans....but I really want to see Duke come out with a new sense of urgency. With or without Hendo....we gotta bring it. Especially if we want to meet back up with the Tarholes in the
ACC Championship!! Wouldn't you love to see Hendo and Hansbrough shake hands before tipoff in that game!

vango
03-04-2007, 06:18 PM
Aside from his folks - who won't be asked about this - I'd be curious as to what a really good friend who knows who he is, how he acts, has played with him and against - would say....

SMO
03-04-2007, 06:20 PM
Well...I was with you all the way up until this point. How is G getting screwed? Just because, in your opinion, you don't think it was intentional?

GH gets screwed because the officials on the floor made the call that requires a 1-game suspension after a cursory review in an influential environment. Maybe it was intential, if so then call an intentional foul. I think the screwing takes place if the call a hard foul "fighting", which it clearly was not.

feldspar
03-04-2007, 06:20 PM
Aside from his folks - who won't be asked about this - I'd be curious as to what a really good friend who knows who he is, how he acts, has played with him and against - would say....

I don't really think that makes much difference. Ask anyone who knew Chris Paul from high school and they'll tell you he was the NICEST person you'll ever meet.

feldspar
03-04-2007, 06:21 PM
GH gets screwed because the officials on the floor made the call that requires a 1-game suspension after a cursory review in an influential environment. Maybe it was intential, if so then call an intentional foul. I think the screwing takes place if the call a hard foul "fighting", which it clearly was not.

That is their J-O-B.

It might serve you well to take off your Duke-colored glasses and look at the replay again. It's questionable at BEST.

oso diablo
03-04-2007, 06:23 PM
It might serve you well to take off your Duke-colored glasses and look at the replay again. It's questionable at BEST.
c'mon. we've all seen fighting on a basketball court, and this play was nothing close to that.

imagepro
03-04-2007, 06:23 PM
I left my moms house with about 45 seconds left to drive home. I can't get tthe Duke radio network (xm in my car, not my truck) so I had to listen to Woody and Eric. Actually Eric had just commended GP on a "valiant effort" when the incident occured.

I was forced to get the story from UNC, and here is EXACTLy what Montross said- " Gerald Henderson just punched Tyler Hansbrough in the face, and with a CLOSED FIST!" He went on to say that once more. Even after watching the replay. As of now, 7:20 pm, I have yet to see the replay. However, I got a call from trinitydevil and another Duke fan screaming about the decision for ejection.

Anyway, having not seen the play myself, I will wait to express my opinion. But based on what EVERYONE is telling me, there was NO closed fist punch thrown. If anyone saw that, please tell me, as I am writing the UNC radio network asking for an apology from Montross.

feldspar
03-04-2007, 06:24 PM
c'mon. we've all seen fighting on a basketball court, and this play was nothing close to that.

According to YOUR definition of fighting. The NCAA has a completely different definition.

highlandangel
03-04-2007, 06:25 PM
Intentional, flagrant or not, he wasn't fighting, which is what the officials called. By calling it fighting, they insured that Henderson can't play on Thursday. Even the UNC fans I watched the game with didn't think he was fighting, even though they were sure it was intentional. Even if it was, which i'm inclined to believe otherwise, it wasn't fighting.

SMO
03-04-2007, 06:25 PM
That is their J-O-B.

It might serve you well to take off your Duke-colored glasses and look at the replay again. It's questionable at BEST.

Have you ever seen a fight? How about a fight in a basketball game? Did it look like that??? It might serve you well to take note of one if you have not. They do not generally consist of guys going up for a dunk and getting fouled hard by a guy who is not even looking at where he is swinging. If they call that fighting there would be a lot more guys suspended.

dukewray
03-04-2007, 06:25 PM
Questionable my arse. That was a good hard foul.....had Hansbrough not 1) tried to pad his own stats, 2) try to run the score up on an already over ballgame 3) graduated last year with the rest of the 22 years olds .....the foul probably wouldn't have occured.

feldspar
03-04-2007, 06:26 PM
Have you ever seen a fight? How about a fight in a basketball game? Did it look like that??? It might serve you well to take note of one if you have not. They do not generally consist of guys going up for a dunk and getting fouled hard by a guy who is not even looking at where he is swinging. If they call that fighting there would be a lot more guys suspended.

Once again, read the rule book. The NCAA has a very specific set of guidelines for what is considered a fight and what is not. This is not playground basketball.

jkidd31
03-04-2007, 06:27 PM
Go back 6 years, remember the flack Jason Williams took after the incident in the Boston College game from some on the board? He was trying to run the clock out and the play was 30-40 feet from the basket. I agree here is to not forgeting this for the remainder of this season and on into next season.

oso diablo
03-04-2007, 06:27 PM
According to YOUR definition of fighting. The NCAA has a completely different definition.

not at all. You can read the definition yourself earlier in this now muddled-merged thread.

btw, thanks to the mods for the merge. this board needs to learn not to start a new thread for every new thought.

highlandangel
03-04-2007, 06:29 PM
The question is still intent - because the rule is framed in "attempt" to strike, then if a blow is landed, then all blows must be fighting, unless you consider attempt. Since we know that is not the case, then this is still a question of intent. If Henderson did not intend to strike TH, then it shouldn't have been a fighting call. Obviously the officials felt differently.

SMO
03-04-2007, 06:29 PM
Once again, read the rule book. The NCAA has a very specific set of guidelines for what is considered a fight and what is not. This is not playground basketball.

I already read them on a related post, and it would be a stretch AT BEST to call this a fight. This was not even close.

feldspar
03-04-2007, 06:30 PM
not at all. You can read the definition yourself earlier in this now muddled-merged thread.



I have.

Section 17. Fighting
Art. 1. Fighting, as defined in Rule 4-23, includes, but is not limited to:
a. An attempt to strike an opponent with the arms, hands, legs or feet.
b. An attempt to punch or kick an opponent, regardless of whether
contact is made.
c. An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsportsmanlike act toward an opponent that causes the opponent to retaliate by fighting.

I understand that YOU don't agree that either act happened, but based on the replay, it's questionable at best. I don't fault the officials for making the determination that the blow was a fighting act.

I would challenge you to really and truly set aside your Duke bias and look at the replay again.

bluebutton
03-04-2007, 06:30 PM
This:

[QUOTE=dukelion;2047][?/QUOTE]

is unnecessary.

Fact of the matter is that we wouldn't roll over until the clock ran out. We've pulled out miracles before and that's part of what I love about being a Duke fan. I never fully believe we are going to lose until that buzzer goes off. So TH was in the game and going for a dunk. RW has to be a "piece of trash"? We don't have to think that way. I don't mind TH bleeding (although nose breaking and crying go together so we could cut him some slack), but I also don't mind Carolina still playing.

I don't think GH deserves a suspension and I do think the crowd influenced that call. The character attack on RW and saying ppl deserve to get hurt-- that's too much for me.

feldspar
03-04-2007, 06:31 PM
I already read them on a related post, and it would be a stretch AT BEST to call this a fight. This was not even close.

Fine. We'll have to agree to disagree, then. Have fun wallowing in your outrage. Me? I'm getting excited for the ACC Tournament.

oso diablo
03-04-2007, 06:33 PM
I understand that YOU don't agree that either act happened, but based on the replay, it's questionable at best. I don't fault the officials for making the determination that the blow was a fighting act.

I would challenge you to really and truly set aside your Duke bias and look at the replay again.
i've seen the replay a dozen or more times. from the end-zone camera, given a layman's view, it looks flagrant and justifiable. from the head-on camera, and every other angle, even Billy Packer can understand what happened.

you're on an island with Karl Hess and Eric Montross at this point. Probably not a fun place to be.

SMO
03-04-2007, 06:35 PM
Fine. We'll have to agree to disagree, then. Have fun wallowing in your outrage. Me? I'm getting excited for the ACC Tournament.

Actually, if you read it to the letter Hansbrough should have been tossed and suspended as well for attempting to fight. I'm excited too.

feldspar
03-04-2007, 06:39 PM
i've seen the replay a dozen or more times. from the end-zone camera, given a layman's view, it looks flagrant and justifiable. from the head-on camera, and every other angle, even Billy Packer can understand what happened.

you're on an island with Karl Hess and Eric Montross at this point. Probably not a fun place to be.

I'm on no such island. And Montross is an idiot if what imagepro is correct. He called it a close-fist punch. It wasn't.

And you seem to be on an island with a bunch of upset Duke fans and Billy Packer. Heh. Have fun.

Virginian
03-04-2007, 06:39 PM
At least I think that's what the announcers said. Not an intentional foul, not a foul for fighting, not a flagrant foul. Rather a player being so out of control that he causes injury to another player. I think they said it automatically includes a one-game suspension. That's what I heard but I don't have a copy of the NCAA or ACC rules on such things.

I agree Hansb. should not have been in the game. And what about Hansb. throwing an elbow and laying one of our guys clean out on the court about two minutes earlier when we two-man trapped him on an inbounds play? There was NO foul called on that one.

godukecom
03-04-2007, 06:42 PM
Does anyone know if there is a good replay on youtube or something of the g-TH incident? Thanks.

imagepro
03-04-2007, 06:51 PM
Why would I possibly say he siad something he did NOT say. I heard him say it- not once, but TWICE! I still haven't seen the "incident"... Was it a "closed fist punch" as Montross described it,or not? I AM going to write Eric is he reported that incorrectly

jrb3
03-04-2007, 06:53 PM
I have.

Section 17. Fighting
Art. 1. Fighting, as defined in Rule 4-23, includes, but is not limited to:
a. An attempt to strike an opponent with the arms, hands, legs or feet.
b. An attempt to punch or kick an opponent, regardless of whether
contact is made.
c. An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsportsmanlike act toward an opponent that causes the opponent to retaliate by fighting.

I understand that YOU don't agree that either act happened, but based on the replay, it's questionable at best. I don't fault the officials for making the determination that the blow was a fighting act.

I would challenge you to really and truly set aside your Duke bias and look at the replay again.

Under (a) above, an intentional foul is fighting. Do you think that is what the NCAA really meant?

jsimmons
03-04-2007, 06:56 PM
where was K when the refs were deciding punishment for Henderson. He barely argued, and it seemed to be a play bigger than he seemed to take it. I would have thought he would have stuck up for his players more than that.

highlandangel
03-04-2007, 06:59 PM
He talked to Roy and to the refs. What was he supposed to do? And I saw that in between the multiple replays, meaning I couldn't see what was happening on the floor at the time. Not to mention there was a guy bleeding profusely after a foul, no matter intent or otherwise, by one of our players...what exactly did you want?

77devil
03-04-2007, 07:02 PM
Given the enviroment, I suspect he quickly, and correctly IMO, decided it was in GH's and Duke's best interest to deal with the decision after the game with conference administrators.

Spret42
03-04-2007, 07:03 PM
The more I watch it, the more I with the call and think that they have to suspend Henderson. He comes in from the side and his momemtum carries him directly into Hansbrough and he lands a pretty vicious shot. He was not under control and in doing so he landed a blow that resulted in a defenseless player being bloodied.

http://media.putfile.com/Henderson-Cheapshot

Keep your eyes on Henderson through the play and tell me that he was under control on that play. I am sorry, you get suspended for that. I have no doubt that Henderson had no intent. Duke players haven't and don't play that way. Duke has always played clean.

Contrary to opinions earlier expressed, players absolutely are required to be under control in a game. If two players dive for a loose ball and one player does so in a reckless manner, i.e., he dives with his elbows up and aimed at the opposing player etc, he can be suspended.

CDu
03-04-2007, 07:04 PM
Why would I possibly say he siad something he did NOT say. I heard him say it- not once, but TWICE! I still haven't seen the "incident"... Was it a "closed fist punch" as Montross described it,or not? I AM going to write Eric is he reported that incorrectly

Well, it wasn't a punch to begin with, so it was definitely not a closed-fist punch. It looked like a cross between a hard foul (swatting at the shooter's arms) and a block attempt. If you look at the replay, you see that Henderson isn't even looking at Hansbrough (his eyes even appear to be closed and he's looking away).

It looks to me like Henderson came flying in to ensure no easy bucket, either via blocking the shot or fouling. Hansbrough adjusted to contact or a blocked shot by Johnson, writhing to force the shot up. In doing so, he lost the ball, just as Henderson flew into the picture. Henderson adjusted to try to hit the ball, and unfortunately hit face instead.

I'm guessing that Montross got caught up in the moment. He's obviously a Tar Heel through and through, and this was clearly an emotional moment. I'm not sure how many replays he got to see either before he said those things. He's generally a pretty reasonable guy, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

captmojo
03-04-2007, 07:05 PM
the only time i can think of when a punch was thrown during a game in this rivalry was larry brown making the swing.

bluebear
03-04-2007, 07:09 PM
agree that he was out of control and that players need to be in control but how often is a player suspending simpy for being out of control..it's generally just a T...and should have been in this case..

CDu
03-04-2007, 07:09 PM
The more I watch it, the more I with the call and think that they have to suspend Henderson. He comes in from the side and his momemtum carries him directly into Hansbrough and he lands a pretty vicious shot. He was not under control and in doing so he landed a blow that resulted in a defenseless player being bloodied.

http://media.putfile.com/Henderson-Cheapshot

Keep your eyes on Henderson through the play and tell me that he was under control on that play. I am sorry, you get suspended for that. I have no doubt that Henderson had no intent. Duke players haven't and don't play that way. Duke has always played clean.

Contrary to opinions earlier expressed, players absolutely are required to be under control in a game. If two players dive for a loose ball and one player does so in a reckless manner, i.e., he dives with his elbows up and aimed at the opposing player etc, he can be suspended.

I completely disagree. Henderson didn't get suspended because he was out of control. He got suspended because the officials deemed it a combative foul. If the officials had felt he'd just been out of control, and the foul had just been unfortunate accident, they'd have not tossed him. But they deemed it intentional and combative.

Madrasdukie
03-04-2007, 07:14 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/basketball/ncaa/03/04/unc.duke.ap/index.html

longtimefan
03-04-2007, 07:14 PM
He got our guys in the air, and I came down on him," Henderson said. "It's unfortunate that it turned out like it did, but I wasn't trying to hurt the kid or anything. It just turned worse than it was."
from s.i

imagepro
03-04-2007, 07:14 PM
My letter is on its way to Eric Montross. He called it , and again I quote---
" a closed fist punch to the face"...

77devil
03-04-2007, 07:18 PM
At least I think that's what the announcers said. Not an intentional foul, not a foul for fighting, not a flagrant foul. Rather a player being so out of control that he causes injury to another player. I think they said it automatically includes a one-game suspension. That's what I heard but I don't have a copy of the NCAA or ACC rules on such things.

I agree Hansb. should not have been in the game. And what about Hansb. throwing an elbow and laying one of our guys clean out on the court about two minutes earlier when we two-man trapped him on an inbounds play? There was NO foul called on that one.

Several posts have included the NCAA rule defining fighting. I tried to find combative foul as a defined term in the NCAA rules and could not. I am almost positive that Jim Nance said that one of the officials told him it was a combative foul. If someone can find the NCAA definition, please post it.

SMO
03-04-2007, 07:19 PM
Can you point to a rule regarding lack of control punishable by suspension? If there is one maybe you're right, but I've never heard of such a thing.


The more I watch it, the more I with the call and think that they have to suspend Henderson. He comes in from the side and his momemtum carries him directly into Hansbrough and he lands a pretty vicious shot. He was not under control and in doing so he landed a blow that resulted in a defenseless player being bloodied.

http://media.putfile.com/Henderson-Cheapshot

Keep your eyes on Henderson through the play and tell me that he was under control on that play. I am sorry, you get suspended for that. I have no doubt that Henderson had no intent. Duke players haven't and don't play that way. Duke has always played clean.

Contrary to opinions earlier expressed, players absolutely are required to be under control in a game. If two players dive for a loose ball and one player does so in a reckless manner, i.e., he dives with his elbows up and aimed at the opposing player etc, he can be suspended.

banneheim
03-04-2007, 07:21 PM
Did anyone catch the amazing block, a two-handed grab. It was negated by a blocking call by the refs. It reminded me of when Jordan blocked Ron Mercer during his comeback with the Wizards. Hey, I'm for losing the first game of the ACC tournament (getting rest) and winning six down the road. Anyone with me on that?

Duke15304
03-04-2007, 07:21 PM
I just found out about it now since I turned the game off w/ 30 secs left since I didnt feel the need to watch their starters in the game, so i just saw in on cbssportsline I dont the foul so much intentional, he just wanted to make sure he didnt dunk the ball in the first place, and TH wonders why it happened, first of all he gives elbows all day, and then he tries to dunk w/ 15 secs left up 16, hes an loser, Im not so mad that GH was tossed, im mad that he will be out Thrus, luckily, i think we can take State, but still it BS, all i know is if we end up playing in the final, it could be crazy, not that i think it would happen

BuschDevil
03-04-2007, 07:30 PM
I wonder if the officials only looked at the replay of the under the basket view. From that angle, all you can see is Gerald's arm coming down hard, but the actual contact with TH is obstructed by another Duke player (Marty, I think), and you can't tell if Gerald's hand was opened or closed, so I can see how it could then be construed as intentional. (Perhaps Montross only looked at this one angle as well.)

However, in the view from the other end of the court, it seems clear that the injuring contact was not intentional, as Gerald's hand was clearly open, his arm changed direction (down & to his left) as he followed the ball, resulting in his arm coming across TH's nose. It was a hard & aggressive attempt at stopping a basket, but if the refs had seen this camera angle, I don't see how they could term it "combative". Flagrant perhaps, warranting an ejection perhaps, but not a suspension for the next game. (Packer was right.)

In the end, whatever the outcome of this, we will have to accept it and move on... "Next play"... now, I expect Coach K to use this as motivation for the team, but that is all it is good for at this point.

Some heel fans will never let this go (probably some of ours, too.), but I'm hoping that their coaches & players will realize it was accidental and say so publicly, for the good of all. ... I know, not going to happen. But I can hope, can't I?

Oh, and one other small note: the three they took with 12 seconds left was by their senior walk-on, Dewey Burke. You can't blame a walk-on for trying to score on his senior night.

rthomas
03-04-2007, 07:32 PM
After the game, Montross said that that he didn't think G was going after TH, it was an unfortunate incident.

CDu
03-04-2007, 07:39 PM
After the game, Montross said that that he didn't think G was going after TH, it was an unfortunate incident.

That sounds more like Montross. I'm guessing the emotion of the moment and (perhaps) a lack of a good camera angle at the time was the reason for his incorrect statement originally. Glad to hear he changed his tune.

jtholland
03-04-2007, 07:46 PM
I turned the game off to watch the golf playoff and missed this. First I'd question why Henderson was in the game at this point, second WTF is TH doing in the game? If you are a starter trying to dunk at that point in time instead of running the clock out you are fair game to people trying to make a play. As long as Henderson didn't clothesline him props for taking some pride and not rolling over.

you turned the game off to watch golf.. and you admit to that in public? ;-)

damskippy
03-04-2007, 07:46 PM
i liked the way all our asst coaches went to the locker room with gerald. definitely a show of protest at the ejection by the duke coaches.

Yeah, that was great. Almost like a riding in the front of the bus kind of protest. Woohoo.

dukestheheat
03-04-2007, 07:47 PM
well, i will have to say that that foul on Hansbrough by Hendo was a tough, tough foul, and that Hendo was totally out of control in fouling him that hard, and a part of me wants to see that as a flagrant foul on Hendo's part.

i watched that replay about 20 times like everyone else, but it seemed like a totally excessive amount of force was used by Hendo to block the dunk; then again, he WAS dunking it, and it probably takes a lot of force to block a dunk.....so i don't know what else to say but i have a bad feeling about the play.

we are catching a lot of heat on espn radio about the play.

dth.

BacchusBlue
03-04-2007, 07:48 PM
I don't know intent, and I won't make a guess. But I just heard K's comments on the News & Observer website, and I think he made a huge mistake by even mentioning that it was "unfortunate" that those players were still on the court. If it was purely an accident, then the time and score would have simply been a coincidence. Don't even bring that up. That's the same thing the Knicks started yelling about after their fight with the Nuggets a few weeks ago, and that is not the kind of company we want to keep. I think K realized he made a mistake too because he spent the next minute and a half backpedaling. Might as well just let this all go quickly, and any debate over whether T should have been on the court won't help with that.

Spret42
03-04-2007, 07:52 PM
Can you point to a rule regarding lack of control punishable by suspension? If there is one maybe you're right, but I've never heard of such a thing.

There is no rule regarding being out of control. It is about the results that come from being out of control. Henderson was out of control, drew his elbows down hard and it resulted in a defenseless player being bloodied. If Henderson keeps his elbows and arms high and catches Hansbrough in a different manner, there is probably no suspension.

Leagues have in the past issued suspensions in various sports where a player hurt another player in this type of manner where the player had no intent to do so. They have discretion in manners like this. Say two guys make an honest attempt at a loose ball and one guy gets an eye poke or a separated shoulder due to the contact; it often results in nothing more than a foul. A guy ends up eating another players wildly flailing elbows and the guy can get suspended.

To suspend Henderson is to say, the results of your actions have consequences, even if you didn't mean it. Again, I am on Duke's side in the sense that Henderson didn't throw a cheap shot, but he failed to control himself and it had results.

Spret42
03-04-2007, 07:55 PM
I completely disagree. Henderson didn't get suspended because he was out of control. He got suspended because the officials deemed it a combative foul. If the officials had felt he'd just been out of control, and the foul had just been unfortunate accident, they'd have not tossed him. But they deemed it intentional and combative.

Then they suspended him for the wrong reason. But he should have been suspended, because he failed to control himself and it had consequences.

CDu
03-04-2007, 07:57 PM
There is no rule regarding being out of control. It is about the results that come from being out of control. Henderson was out of control, drew his elbows down hard and it resulted in a defenseless player being bloodied. If Henderson keeps his elbows and arms high and catches Hansbrough in a different manner, there is probably no suspension.

Leagues have in the past issued suspensions in various sports where a player hurt another player in this type of manner where the player had no intent to do so. They have discretion in manners like this. Say two guys make an honest attempt at a loose ball and one guy gets an eye poke or a separated shoulder due to the contact; it often results in nothing more than a foul. A guy ends up eating another players wildly flailing elbows and the guy can get suspended.

To suspend Henderson is to say, the results of your actions have consequences, even if you didn't mean it. Again, I am on Duke's side in the sense that Henderson didn't throw a cheap shot, but he failed to control himself and it had results.

And I'll restate the point that Henderson didn't get suspended for the reasons you suggest. The officials called it a combative foul, meaning they felt Henderson intended to foul Hansbrough hard. The suspension is due to the fact that the officials felt it was a combative foul. This has nothing to do with body control.

jhmd2000
03-04-2007, 08:05 PM
Given the circumstances of the game at that point, it is going to be awfully hard for K to sell this one as an accident. I think the replay is pretty damaging for Henderson; it is time to take off the blue glasses and fess up. Even the position that "it wasn't intentional" is pretty easily impeachable, because didn't Dockery intentionally punch the same player in the face this exact game last year, at about the same time left on the clock?
Did K do anything to that player? Obviously not, so please spare us the self-serving hypocrisy and pretend a) that is was not intentional, and b) if it was you would do something about it. Grow up and "lead" your people into not shirking responsibility for their actions.

phaedrus
03-04-2007, 08:06 PM
Yeah, nothing but class down the stretch from UNC. Playing the starters up 12 with 15 seconds to go. And jacking up a three up 14 with 12 to go. Nice.

i believe that was a seldom-used senior taking the last shot of his career in the dean dome.

run up the score? we're duke. i'd be insulted if anyone ever pulled their starters against us.

SMO
03-04-2007, 08:12 PM
Two problems here:

1. I still haven't seen a rule stating anything about suspensions due to the results that come from being out of control.

2. The league didn't suspend him. Supposedly there's some rule out there that the referees applied which mandates an automatic suspension. No one has come up with the rule and I doubt it cites "being out of control" but I could be wrong. Has anyone found it yet?


There is no rule regarding being out of control. It is about the results that come from being out of control. Henderson was out of control, drew his elbows down hard and it resulted in a defenseless player being bloodied. If Henderson keeps his elbows and arms high and catches Hansbrough in a different manner, there is probably no suspension.

Leagues have in the past issued suspensions in various sports where a player hurt another player in this type of manner where the player had no intent to do so. They have discretion in manners like this. Say two guys make an honest attempt at a loose ball and one guy gets an eye poke or a separated shoulder due to the contact; it often results in nothing more than a foul. A guy ends up eating another players wildly flailing elbows and the guy can get suspended.

To suspend Henderson is to say, the results of your actions have consequences, even if you didn't mean it. Again, I am on Duke's side in the sense that Henderson didn't throw a cheap shot, but he failed to control himself and it had results.

AtlDuke72
03-04-2007, 08:12 PM
The incident never occurs if Carolina's players had not been lined up on the free throw line. With 14 seconds left and a 12 point lead you NEVER see a team try to rebound. The players will play hard if the coach lets them. It should have never happened. Williams was trying to run up the score. Coach K won't comment on it, but you can bet he won't forget it.

Spret42
03-04-2007, 08:14 PM
The end of that game was interesting. Didn't Duke call a timeout, down 13 with only 45 seconds left on the clock. At that point, if you are UNC, you have to leave your best players in the game to take and make the foul shots you are sure to be getting.

I really think the whole thing was unfortunate. Duke's admirable unwillingness to lay down and die, despite clearly haveing been beaten, may have caused Roy to leave Hansbrough in the game and hence resulted in the young man fighting so hard for that completely meaningless rebound.

There is no winner in the way that game ended.

Part of sportsmanship in basketball it to back off and quit fouling when it is unreasonalble to think you can make up the difference.

Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever know what was really going on with both coaches etc at the end of that game.

willywoody
03-04-2007, 08:17 PM
Yeah, that was great. Almost like a riding in the front of the bus kind of protest. Woohoo.


maybe they should've thrown some chairs?

or they could've walked over and started banging on the scorers table?

it was a very classy move that obviously was lost on many.

Bluedog
03-04-2007, 08:18 PM
But I just heard K's comments on the News & Observer website, and I think he made a huge mistake by even mentioning that it was "unfortunate" that those players were still on the court.

I don't think K's comment was that big of a deal. He says, "I had a chance to watch the play...Look, we'll take all responsibility, but if there is any way Gerald Henderson did that intentionally, it is crazy ... He's moving away from it, he's going up to block...Now, he hit him and he should be fouled...He didn't extend anything...I'm sorry that Tyler got hit...That's obviously not what you want have happened...But the intent was not to do that...I feel badly for Tyler and I apologize for that, but I know that there was no intent to do that...But, you go with what was called, and I feel badly that that happened."

Now what you are talking about: "The game was over before that. The outcome of the game. That was unfortunate that those people were in the game in that way. But that's what happens. You know, I mean it's 20 seconds left. What I'm saying, I'm not blaming anybody, it's unfortunate, we should have both probably had our walk-ons on....I'm not blaming anybody. You know, I'm not blaming anybody...If he did extend his arm, boy, I'll tell you, that was wrong, and I might suspend him for more. You want to do what's right. Our kids are not immune for making mistakes and doing wrong...I know he didn't do it on purpose...And seeing it I am convinced. Did he get hit? Ya, it's ugly. You never want that to happen to anybody. But the kid didn't intend to do that, that's what I'm saying."

http://www.newsobserver.com/758/story/549728.html

He does try to emphasize that he's "not blaming anybody," but he also says we both should have had our walk-ons on; not just "they" should have. I don't think anything K said was a "huge mistake"

jkidd31
03-04-2007, 08:19 PM
you turned the game off to watch golf.. and you admit to that in public? ;-)

Yeah the way the game was going was not what I had hoped and my friend told me over the phone some guy missed a 3 foot putt to go to a playoff.

bluebear
03-04-2007, 08:19 PM
TH had no business taking that ball back up..he could have easily passed it back out and run out the clock without anyone trying to foul...I guarantee Duke would have done that and if not, K would have been all over them..

willywoody
03-04-2007, 08:19 PM
Given the circumstances of the game at that point, it is going to be awfully hard for K to sell this one as an accident. I think the replay is pretty damaging for Henderson; it is time to take off the blue glasses and fess up. Even the position that "it wasn't intentional" is pretty easily impeachable, because didn't Dockery intentionally punch the same player in the face this exact game last year, at about the same time left on the clock?
Did K do anything to that player? Obviously not, so please spare us the self-serving hypocrisy and pretend a) that is was not intentional, and b) if it was you would do something about it. Grow up and "lead" your people into not shirking responsibility for their actions.

maybe its time for you to take off your baby blue glasses.

CDu
03-04-2007, 08:19 PM
Given the circumstances of the game at that point, it is going to be awfully hard for K to sell this one as an accident. I think the replay is pretty damaging for Henderson; it is time to take off the blue glasses and fess up. Even the position that "it wasn't intentional" is pretty easily impeachable, because didn't Dockery intentionally punch the same player in the face this exact game last year, at about the same time left on the clock?
Did K do anything to that player? Obviously not, so please spare us the self-serving hypocrisy and pretend a) that is was not intentional, and b) if it was you would do something about it. Grow up and "lead" your people into not shirking responsibility for their actions.

I couldn't disagree with you more on this.

Dockery did NOT punch Hansbrough. He SHOVED Hansbrough in the face. That's substantially different.

And you may think the Henderson foul was intentional. But if you watch the replay, and notice that Henderson is not even looking at Hansbrough, it's pretty clearly not intentional.

devilsadvocate85
03-04-2007, 08:20 PM
The more I watch it, the more I with the call and think that they have to suspend Henderson. He comes in from the side and his momemtum carries him directly into Hansbrough and he lands a pretty vicious shot. He was not under control and in doing so he landed a blow that resulted in a defenseless player being bloodied.

http://media.putfile.com/Henderson-Cheapshot

Keep your eyes on Henderson through the play and tell me that he was under control on that play. I am sorry, you get suspended for that. I have no doubt that Henderson had no intent. Duke players haven't and don't play that way. Duke has always played clean.

Contrary to opinions earlier expressed, players absolutely are required to be under control in a game. If two players dive for a loose ball and one player does so in a reckless manner, i.e., he dives with his elbows up and aimed at the opposing player etc, he can be suspended.


Players never get suspended for being out of control on a basketball play. There is no such thing. Hansbrough was fouled by the walkon that caused the ball to change direction and Hansbroughs arms to come down. Henderson was clearly swinging to block the shot which is why his head, body and "OPEN" hand were turned toward where the ball went. It was an unfortunate accident that his forearm hit Hansbrough's nose, but that's all it was. A flagrant foul, absolutely, but clearly not a punch, clearly not intentional. He wasn't even looking at Hansbrough when the contact came. We have seen many intentional and even flagrant fouls over the years and the player always looks at his target. Henderson was looking at the BALL!!!!!

Spret42
03-04-2007, 08:21 PM
And I'll restate the point that Henderson didn't get suspended for the reasons you suggest. The officials called it a combative foul, meaning they felt Henderson intended to foul Hansbrough hard. The suspension is due to the fact that the officials felt it was a combative foul. This has nothing to do with body control.

The "combative foul" was certainly a result of body control. If Henderson doesn't come into that play in such a combative manner, he has greater body control and doesn't split Hansbrough wide open.

The harder and more combatively you play, the less control you have and the great the chance for results like we saw today.

They suspended him for being out of control which resulted in a combative foul and a player being bloodied.

CDu
03-04-2007, 08:21 PM
Then they suspended him for the wrong reason. But he should have been suspended, because he failed to control himself and it had consequences.

That's your opinion, but I don't think the rulebook agrees with you.

hurleyfor3
03-04-2007, 08:27 PM
This incident strikes me as the highlight of the season. And by "strikes me" I mean it's bloody obvious. We're not great, we're not terrible and we weren't winning this game anyway, so what else are we going to remember from this year?

devilsadvocate85
03-04-2007, 08:27 PM
The "combative foul" was certainly a result of body control. If Henderson doesn't come into that play in such a combative manner, he has greater body control and doesn't split Hansbrough wide open.

The harder and more combatively you play, the less control you have and the great the chance for results like we saw today.

They suspended him for being out of control which resulted in a combative foul and a player being bloodied.

When a 6' 10" 260 pound player is trying to dunk, and you are trying to block the dunk, you have to match his force or you will get your arm broken. The other player fouling Hansbrough changed the dynamic of the play, something that Henderson had no control over. It was a hard foul, but he wasn't even trying to foul him. He was trying to block the dunk. The fact that his body, eyes and hand all follow the ball are clear confirmation of that. If he was trying to just foul Hansbrough, his eyes, hands and body would have gone straight for the player. Anyone who has played the game can tell you how you foul someone on purpose.

CDu
03-04-2007, 08:29 PM
The end of that game was interesting. Didn't Duke call a timeout, down 13 with only 45 seconds left on the clock. At that point, if you are UNC, you have to leave your best players in the game to take and make the foul shots you are sure to be getting.

I really think the whole thing was unfortunate. Duke's admirable unwillingness to lay down and die, despite clearly haveing been beaten, may have caused Roy to leave Hansbrough in the game and hence resulted in the young man fighting so hard for that completely meaningless rebound.

There is no winner in the way that game ended.

Part of sportsmanship in basketball it to back off and quit fouling when it is unreasonalble to think you can make up the difference.

Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever know what was really going on with both coaches etc at the end of that game.

1. I'm pretty sure Roy could have called a timeout down the stretch. He could have taken guys out then. So the "Duke didn't call timeout" argument has little to no validity.

2. I'm pretty sure there was no need to have guys in the lane rebounding missed offensive free throws while up 12 with 19 seconds to go.

It's an unfortunate accident, but let's not paint UNC as completely innocent here. If they'd not been trying to show up Duke, there would have been no chance of Hansbrough getting fouled hard. If Henderson had intentionally elbowed Hansbrough, there'd have been no excusing that. But there's an easy way to avoid accidents: don't put your players at risk.

vango
03-04-2007, 08:29 PM
I don't really think that makes much difference. Ask anyone who knew Chris Paul from high school and they'll tell you he was the NICEST person you'll ever meet.

True. I just think in this case Ellington is a teammate of Hansborough. He has an allegience to his team but also to his friend. He'd probably be honest and it would probably go a long way to easing things if he says Henderson wouldn't intentionally harm a player.

Duke followers would believe that and UNC fans/players may as well. They're going to play again - if not this year then next. Those sorts of words (assuming it is true and accurate) can go a ways to easing the testiness that is going to be there next time - and it will be.

Undeclared
03-04-2007, 08:30 PM
They suspended him for being out of control which resulted in a combative foul and a player being bloodied.
I wish people would stop saying that. They quite simply did not suspend Henderson "for being out of control", they suspended him for fighting (according to the NCAA definition). Whether Henderson was out of control is irrelevant.

Spret42
03-04-2007, 08:30 PM
Players never get suspended for being out of control on a basketball play. There is no such thing. Hansbrough was fouled by the walkon that caused the ball to change direction and Hansbroughs arms to come down. Henderson was clearly swinging to block the shot which is why his head, body and "OPEN" hand were turned toward where the ball went. It was an unfortunate accident that his forearm hit Hansbrough's nose, but that's all it was. A flagrant foul, absolutely, but clearly not a punch, clearly not intentional. He wasn't even looking at Hansbrough when the contact came. We have seen many intentional and even flagrant fouls over the years and the player always looks at his target. Henderson was looking at the BALL!!!!!

It doesn't matter if he meant it, or where he was looking when it happened etc. He was out of control, it resulted in contact that the refs deemed "combative" and he was suspended for it. If he goes in to block the shot by leaping straight up, more under control and keeps his elbows high in a fundamental basketball play what happens at the end of that play. Nothing. He is called for a simple foul.

He flew in sideways, made body contact with Hansbrough, ripped his arms back down towards the ball and split him open. He didn't mean it, but it had results and the refs deamed his play to be "combative."

HK Dukie
03-04-2007, 08:30 PM
We were going to need 4 days to win the ACC championship anyway. Now we get to have Henderson all rested up for Day2. Who knows, after the awesome game he had, maybe this will just serve as greater motivation to take the team over the top.

And while I'm on my soapbox, I laughed when Hansbooboo got hit. Then I was concerned he might have lost some teeth (so I took back my laugh). Then I saw him go insane again (and didn't see any teeth), then the laughing came back. Sue me.

Go to Hell Carolina!

dukelifer
03-04-2007, 08:31 PM
According to the ESPN summary, TH's nose is not broken. So that is a good thing for GH- who will not have to deal with the UNC fans who might claim he ruined the Tar Heels chances at a NC. Apparently TH was laughing about how he quickly "got up" and starting jawing about the foul. A while back I posted that I was not sure who I did not like on the Heels. Well I found someone.

TheDuke11
03-04-2007, 08:31 PM
has nobody mentioned that Hendo actually tried to draw his arm back AWAY from making contact? Look at the replay. It just looks bad because they were coming down at the same time, but Hendo was actually trying to avoid the contact all together.

montros better hope Hendo is a "marked man" next year, because next year THE MAN will be the best player in the conference. Mark my word. This kid is special.

devilsadvocate85
03-04-2007, 08:32 PM
It doesn't matter if he meant it, or where he was looking when it happened etc. He was out of control, it resulted in contact that the refs deemed "combative" and he was suspended for it. If he goes in to block the shot by leaping straight up, more under control and keeps his elbows high in a fundamental basketball play what happens at the end of that play. Nothing. He is called for a simple foul.

He flew in sideways, made body contact with Hansbrough, ripped his arms back down towards the ball and split him open. He didn't mean it, but it had results and the refs deamed his play to be "combative."

Intent is absolutely the measuring stick! Read the rule!

sanddevil
03-04-2007, 08:33 PM
It should be enough evidence to anyone that it was unintentional that Billy-Fudge adamantly called it accidental. Packer has never given Duke the benefit of any doubt on any call... ever.
Unbelievable -- what a joke.

SMO
03-04-2007, 08:33 PM
Dude, one could category virtually every play in a basketball game as an incident involving "body control". Literally every infraction or adherance to the rules falls under the category of "body control". I think that's why we're all finding your argument so odd.


The "combative foul" was certainly a result of body control. If Henderson doesn't come into that play in such a combative manner, he has greater body control and doesn't split Hansbrough wide open.

The harder and more combatively you play, the less control you have and the great the chance for results like we saw today.

They suspended him for being out of control which resulted in a combative foul and a player being bloodied.

TheDuke11
03-04-2007, 08:34 PM
he was literally crying when he got up. look at his quivering lip.
he reminded me of this 6th grader I coached against last year when he made a bad play he would litereally start bawling on the floor.

Team should take advantage of that. DBR nailed it when they said th was all about dishing out contact but becomes a punk when it comes back to him.

Spret42
03-04-2007, 08:34 PM
1. I'm pretty sure Roy could have called a timeout down the stretch. He could have taken guys out then. So the "Duke didn't call timeout" argument has little to no validity.

2. I'm pretty sure there was no need to have guys in the lane rebounding missed offensive free throws while up 12 with 19 seconds to go.

It's an unfortunate accident, but let's not paint UNC as completely innocent here. If they'd not been trying to show up Duke, there would have been no chance of Hansbrough getting fouled hard. If Henderson had intentionally elbowed Hansbrough, there'd have been no excusing that. But there's an easy way to avoid accidents: don't put your players at risk.

I didn't write "Duke didn't." I wrote "Didn't Duke."

I was referencing Duke calling a timout after hitting a three to cut the lead to 13 with 45 left on the clock. I could be wrong on that though, I am unsure.

BacchusBlue
03-04-2007, 08:35 PM
He does try to emphasize that he's "not blaming anybody," but he also says we both should have had our walk-ons on; not just "they" should have. I don't think anything K said was a "huge mistake"[/QUOTE]

I think that's the reason why K kept saying he wasn't blaming anybody. He must have known the moment he said it that the discussion about who was on the court when was not going to be helpful. It just doesn't look good, and we really would like this to go away.

SMO
03-04-2007, 08:36 PM
I also exhibited a glaring lack of body control and laughed as well. Suspend me.


We were going to need 4 days to win the ACC championship anyway. Now we get to have Henderson all rested up for Day2. Who knows, after the awesome game he had, maybe this will just serve as greater motivation to take the team over the top.

And while I'm on my soapbox, I laughed when Hansbooboo got hit. Then I was concerned he might have lost some teeth (so I took back my laugh). Then I saw him go insane again (and didn't see any teeth), then the laughing came back. Sue me.

Go to Hell Carolina!

Spret42
03-04-2007, 08:38 PM
Dude, one could category virtually every play in a basketball game as an incident involving "body control". Literally every infraction or adherance to the rules falls under the category of "body control". I think that's why we're all finding your argument so odd.


But not every infraction or adherence to the rules results in guy getting split open. This one did, and that has consequences. This time it is suspension.

I had an military instructor who loved the phrase, "damn the bad luck." Henderson made a VERY aggressive play that resulted in blood. Because it did, he gets suspended. Bad luck for Henderson, but that is how it goes sometimes.

I am NOT painting UNC as innocent here in any way believe me.

CDu
03-04-2007, 08:38 PM
The "combative foul" was certainly a result of body control. If Henderson doesn't come into that play in such a combative manner, he has greater body control and doesn't split Hansbrough wide open.

The harder and more combatively you play, the less control you have and the great the chance for results like we saw today.

They suspended him for being out of control which resulted in a combative foul and a player being bloodied.

By that logic, then they should suspend every player who is out of control, whether they foul someone or not. This, of course, would be ridiculous, and is clearly not the case.

Would the foul have happened if Henderson had been under control? No. But how do you enforce that? It's a dangerous slope you recommend. Is jumping for a rebound in the lane out of control? Probably. Is challenging a fast break layup being out of control? Probably. What about driving for baseline dunks. I don't think realize just how many times per game players are out of control, and just how rare an accident like this is. Take away out of control plays, and you take away a LARGE percentage of the game, including some of the most exciting plays in basketball.

The rules are such that playing basketball allows players to play aggressively without fear of suspension. Where they draw the line (and correctly so) is that players can't intentionally try to hurt other players, or intentionally endanger other players. In this case, the refs got it wrong.

A-Tex Devil
03-04-2007, 08:42 PM
77Devil --- the problem is, that it will be hard to get Henderson out of that suspension. If the officials had simply called an intentional foul and let the ACC make call, it would have been fine. But the refs had to make a call that automatically suspended hendu and the burden is on Duke to show it wasn't intentional.

That sucks (for lack of a better word) IMHO.

An intentional foul call would have been fine. I will never understand how they get a "combative foul" out of that replay.

SMO
03-04-2007, 08:43 PM
So you would have us believe that the next time someone gets injured on any foul in which a player could have had better "body control" that player should be suspended based on bad luck. Or maybe it doesn't even have to be a foul, just a clear lack of body control. I'd prefer they just call what's in the rule book as opposed to judging the extent to which one exhibited body control and what luck may have been involved. Call me an idealist.


But not every infraction or adherence to the rules results in guy getting split open. This one did, and that has consequences. This time it is suspension.

I had an military instructor who loved the phrase, "damn the bad luck." Henderson made a VERY aggressive play that resulted in blood. Because it did, he gets suspended. Bad luck for Henderson, but that is how it goes sometimes.

I am NOT painting UNC as innocent here in any way believe me.

CDu
03-04-2007, 08:45 PM
he was literally crying when he got up. look at his quivering lip.
he reminded me of this 6th grader I coached against last year when he made a bad play he would litereally start bawling on the floor.

Team should take advantage of that. DBR nailed it when they said th was all about dishing out contact but becomes a punk when it comes back to him.

I hate that I'm put in the position of defending Hansbrough. But seriously: the guy to a very hard hit to the nose. How about you getting hit in the nose to the point that you're spurting blood. Crying is not out of the question.

I can't stand Hansbrough. I think he's a jerk. But I completely understand the crying there. Having had a broken nose and a near-broken nose, I will NEVER begrudge someone crying over thinking his nose was broken, and thinking someone did it intentionally.

devilsadvocate85
03-04-2007, 08:46 PM
But not every infraction or adherence to the rules results in guy getting split open. This one did, and that has consequences. This time it is suspension.

I had an military instructor who loved the phrase, "damn the bad luck." Henderson made a VERY aggressive play that resulted in blood. Because it did, he gets suspended. Bad luck for Henderson, but that is how it goes sometimes.

I am NOT painting UNC as innocent here in any way believe me.

Based on your logic, if two players dive for a loose ball and butt heads, and one of them ends up with a big, bloody gash in his head, then the other player could be suspended. The flagrant, intentional and aggressive foul rules are based on on the intent of the player, not the end result. By your logic, a complete tacking of a player would be punished differently depending on if the "fouled player" got hurt. That's just ridiculous thinking. I'm not arguing what rule the referees applied. I'm arguing that they are wrong in their judgement. And their judgement was based on intent, not end results.

CathyCA
03-04-2007, 08:46 PM
I also exhibited a glaring lack of body control and laughed as well. Suspend me.


Me too!

I thought Gerald Henderson played with an amazing amount of intensity throughout the entire game. The contact resulted from his playing hard Duke basketball.

Gerald Henderson is my new favorite player.

Duke15304
03-04-2007, 08:47 PM
It wasnt his fault that he was in there, i guess he could have told roy to take him out, but really what player does that, but he shouldnt have tried to dunk in that situation, let alone the 10 elbows he gave during the game

mapei
03-04-2007, 08:51 PM
It should have been an intentional foul, not a suspension. But these things are judgment calls. One can always parse words in rules to argue a legal point about it, but it's basketball, and it was a very hard foul that ended up with a somewhat-too-harsh result. Let's move on.

You know how I would really like to see this go from here? A phone call from Hendo to Tyler, explaining that he wasn't trying to do that, wishes it hadn't happened the way it did, he would have been p*ssed too, if it had happened to him. It would be a classy thing to do and it would help defuse things a little. If Tyler doesn't accept the apology it's his problem, but he probably would. But then I'm hopelessly old-fashioned when it comes to sportsmanship.

Spret42
03-04-2007, 08:54 PM
Based on your logic, if two players dive for a loose ball and butt heads, and one of them ends up with a big, bloody gash in his head, then the other player could be suspended.

Absolutley no way I am arguing that. Two guys butting heads while both aggresively pursuing the ball isn't even close to what happened here.

One guy flew in wildly in from the side, clearly out of control and drilled another defenseless guy in the grill with his elbow. They aren't even the same thing.

The refs said the play was combative. I tend to agree with that assessment.

4everTerping
03-04-2007, 08:55 PM
UNC was trying to run out the clock. The bloody foul came on a rebound from a free throw because Duke would not let UNC run out the clock and kept fouling, clearly under order of Coach K. I will agree the ejection was probably not warranted, but if Coach K keeps fouling trying to come back in a lost cause situation, you can't cry that Roy was keeping in his star players.

Spret42
03-04-2007, 08:58 PM
One can always parse words in rules to argue a legal point about it, but it's basketball, and it was a very hard foul that ended up with a somewhat-too-harsh result.

See, this is my point. When your actions result in a "somewhat-too-harsh result," then you sometimes pay a somewhat-to-harsh penalty.

Again. Damn the bad luck. Hansbroughs bad luck is that his pretty little face got bloodied. Henderson's bad luck is that he sits for a game.

Bob Green
03-04-2007, 08:59 PM
I took a nasty spill onto the floor of a basketball game about 5 years ago and bruised my ribs. A couple of days later, I was at the market buying some groceries and I sneezed, one of those sneezes that shakes your whole body (including my bruised ribs). The pain brought tears to my eyes so I also give TH a pass on the tears. That was a painful blow to his face.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

hurleyfor3
03-04-2007, 09:02 PM
Someone help me, who has the most famous nose now in unc basketball history? Maybe I should do another poll.

http://espn-ak.starwave.com/photo/2007/0304/ncb_u_tylerhansbrough_412.jpg

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/sports/year_in_sports/photos/10.09.jpg

CDu
03-04-2007, 09:03 PM
Absolutley no way I am arguing that. Two guys butting heads while both aggresively pursuing the ball isn't even close to what happened here.

One guy flew in wildly in from the side, clearly out of control and drilled another defenseless guy in the grill with his elbow. They aren't even the same thing.

The refs said the play was combative. I tend to agree with that assessment.

So you've just now changed your complete premise. Your premise was based originally (and right up until this last post) on body control, NOT combativeness. So based on your previous faulty logic, what the previous guy said is right. If you're going to make a rule about body control, you have to police body control. And that includes the unfortunate accidents. Which, of course, is ridiculous.

Your last post seems to not agree with your original argument, though. Now, you seem to be suggesting that there was combative intent in the foul. That's a much different statement. I disagree with that too, but that's ground that can't really be debated (it's just our opinions).

rthomas
03-04-2007, 09:03 PM
but he played a hell of a game. He wa a man out there whether crying or not. 17 rebounds, 26 ponts. That's game.

BobbyFan
03-04-2007, 09:08 PM
A few points:

1. The key issue is the foolishness of the rule stating that, after the game, the authorities "cannot change an officialís ruling that a fight took place or lessen the severity of the penalty." Who is to say that the refs are looking not only at all replays, but analyzing the whole situation at the time they make the decision? It doesn't seem logical to make decisions affecting future games at that time when you have the luxury of sitting down and analyzing it in its entirety later on.

2. The discussion about being "out of control" is not relevent because, well, Gerald was not out of control. Gerald went up for a block because the primary defender got faked out by Hansbrough's pump fake, and he may have gotten the block if Davidson didn't block Tyler from behind. The trajectory of Henderson's jump was hardly impressive. It's not as if he did a flying body drop onto Hansbrough.

3. Only one person knows the true intent of Gerald's forearm. He clearly took a swipe. I think it was an attempt on the ball, but who knows for sure?

4. This is my first post on this new board. Looks great. I'll miss the layout of the old board for nostalgic reasons only.

feldspar
03-04-2007, 09:12 PM
Only one person knows the true intent of Gerald's forearm. He clearly took a swipe. I think it was an attempt on the ball, but who knows for sure?
Agreed. Which is what makes most of this back-and-forth completely pointless.

It's over. Let's move on.

Spret42
03-04-2007, 09:14 PM
So you've just now changed your complete premise. Your premise was based originally (and right up until this last post) on body control, NOT combativeness. So based on your previous faulty logic, what the previous guy said is right. If you're going to make a rule about body control, you have to police body control. And that includes the unfortunate accidents. Which, of course, is ridiculous.

Your last post seems to not agree with your original argument, though. Now, you seem to be suggesting that there was combative intent in the foul. That's a much different statement. I disagree with that too, but that's ground that can't really be debated (it's just our opinions).

No, my point on body control was always that it is the first mover in determining whether one's play can be considered combative. Throwing a punch exhibits perfect body control and is a totally different kind of combative.

Being out of control can result in being considered combative. All players play to a certain degree of "out of control." What Henderson did was play to a level of out of control that resulted his striking a completely defenseless player in the face and drawing blood. His being out of control crossed the line into a "combative" play.

Two players diving for a loose ball and banging heads or knees, two guys going up for the same rebound where one guys elbow catches the other the grill and maybe draw blood are TOTALLY DIFFERENT than what happened.

Hansbrough was engaged with two other players. Henderson, completely out of control came in and drew blood with his elbow on a defenseless player.

CDu
03-04-2007, 09:14 PM
A few points:

1. The key issue is the foolishness of the rule stating that, after the game, the authorities "cannot change an officialís ruling that a fight took place or lessen the severity of the penalty." Who is to say that the refs are looking not only at all replays, but analyzing the whole situation at the time they make the decision? It doesn't seem logical to make decisions affecting future games at that time when you have the luxury of sitting down and analyzing it in its entirety later on.

2. The discussion about being "out of control" is not relevent because, well, Gerald was not out of control. Gerald went up for a block because the primary defender got faked out by Hansbrough's pump fake, and he may have gotten the block if Davidson didn't block Tyler from behind. The trajectory of Henderson's jump was hardly impressive. It's not as if he did a flying body drop onto Hansbrough.

3. Only one person knows the true intent of Gerald's forearm. He clearly took a swipe. I think it was an attempt on the ball, but who knows for sure?

4. This is my first post on this new board. Looks great. I'll miss the layout of the old board for nostalgic reasons only.

1. I agree.
2. I partially agree. Here's where I think "out of control" isn't relevant. I think Henderson wound up out of control, but started the play under control. Where he got out of control was once the play changed directions and he tried to stay with the play. He made a split-second decision to try to make a play, and the result was obvious. This is EXACTLY why you can't implement a rule about body control. If you do that, then nearly any action in which you leave your feet may constitute being out of control, and the situation frequently will change AFTER you've left your feet. If you start suspending people for body control errors, you're going to eventually see people being hesitant to do anything athletic, for fear of suspension. Hesitance is not fun to watch, nor is it in the true intent of the game, nor is it really safe (plenty of injuries occur because of hesitation).
3. I completely agree.
4. I completely agree.

Overt Heelfan
03-04-2007, 09:15 PM
First of all, let me say how much I have enjoyed and respected this site over the years, despite being a Chapel Hill undergrad and an unabashed Tar Heel fan. It has routinely been the first website I go to each morning because (a) it consistently has well written ACC basketball news/opinions and (b) it includes coverage of the Heels (largely objective, which is hard to find on school-specific websites). I have even found the message board to be meaningfull, although that the quality of the posts has been diliuted over the past year or so. It certainly is still above the quality of thought of the Inside Carolina boards (a slight compliment to many of you, I'm sure), but it is slipping. That said, I have continued to find value in checking out the Duke fan perspective on things. I think (most) Duke and Carolina fans truly appreciate the nuances of the game.

I have never taken the time to register until now. First, it has been a long time coming. Second, the end of the game today certainly fired me up, which leads to the following observations (excuse the length, but I could easily have written much more):

1. I have watched the Henderson foul on Hansbrough probably 25 times on slo-mo Tivo. I have tried to be objective in my analysis of the play and to appreciate that sports are not played in slow motion. While I don't think Henderson went in trying to viciously hurt Hansbrough, it is clear that he meant to hit him very hard regardless of the effect on the shot. With the ball squirting out to the side of Henderson, he nevertheless followed through with the swing, with his elbow and forearm leading. In my opinion, making contact with the ball was secondary. Again, if you watch it in slow motion, you will see that Henderson's eyes NEVER followed the ball as it was knocked out of Hansbrough's hands.

2. Henderson deserves a suspension. That is unfortunate for Duke, considering he is becoming the go-to scorer that Duke has lacked throughout the year. He and Paulus have been your best players over the past half dozen games or so. Paulus is not much of a playmaker, but he has been a dependable deep-threat.

3. Duke does not lack for talent. I have watched most Duke games this year, and most teams would kill to have players the caliber of McRoberts, Paulus, Nelson, Scheyer, and Henderson on their squad. What Duke does lack is quickness. I would argue this does not equate to talent. Duke has talent. To say otherwise is to discredit the efforts of the other teams that have defeated Duke this year.

4. Duke will make a run in the NCAA tourney. I don't think they have the team to make a final four appearance, but if they are a 4- or 5-seed, they could cause problems for some potential number 1 seeds like Wisconsin or UCLA. I think Kansas, Ohio St. or Florida would easily handle Duke, but Duke is a good enough team to cause headaches for other highly-touted squads.

5. All this stuff on the boards about "what was Hansbrough doing in there with UNC leading by 12" is both hindsight and ridiculous. First off, 12 points is hardly clear-the-bench time, especially considering Duke and its 3-point firepower are on the other side. Secondly, one thing I feel very confident everyone on this board believes is that Hansbrough plays very hard and doesn't take plays off. Although this is obviously speculative, I don't think Hansbrough went into that rebound and shot thinking he was following up to rub it in. The references to the "NC State punch" are absurd.

6. McRoberts is a real disappointment. Like most of you, I can't quite figure it out. He doesn't have the foul-plagued problems of Shav, but he just doesn't seem to "get it."

Those are my thoughts.

CDu
03-04-2007, 09:17 PM
No, my point on body control was always that it is the first mover in determining whether one's play can be considered combative. Throwing a punch exhibits perfect body control and is a totally different concept here.

All players play to a certain degree of "out of control." What Henderson did was play with a level of out of control that resulted his striking a completely defenseless player in the face and drawing blood. His being out of control crossed the line into "combative.

Two players diving for a loose ball and banging heads or knees. Two guys going up for the same rebound where one guys elbow gets a guy in the grill and maybe draw blood are TOTALLY DIFFERENT than what happened.

Hansbrough was engaged with two other players. Henderson, completely out of control came in and drew blood with his elbow on a defenseless player.

I'm tiring quickly of this debate. Your logic is faulty, and you refuse to see that. Because of that, I'm done with this topic. Henderson got suspended because the officials felt he intentionally fouled Hansbrough very hard. They aren't likely to change the ruling. Thus, it's a moot point. I'm not wasting any more of my time on this.

dukelifer
03-04-2007, 09:18 PM
UNC was trying to run out the clock. The bloody foul came on a rebound from a free throw because Duke would not let UNC run out the clock and kept fouling, clearly under order of Coach K. I will agree the ejection was probably not warranted, but if Coach K keeps fouling trying to come back in a lost cause situation, you can't cry that Roy was keeping in his star players.

K had put in his walkons. I think that is the moment not to go up strong and just let them foul you as you protect the basll. In it not like TH does not like going to the line. K was using this a a teaching lesson. If your review your UNC history, Dean used to do the exact same thing at the end of games- except he would have called every remaining time out. One time against Duke it actually won him a game that was a "lost cause" with a few seconds left.

tommy
03-04-2007, 09:20 PM
Except that apparently there is no avenue to appeal to the conference. Once the refs decide it's "fighting" and eject him, that's it. Suspension for the next game is automatic and non-appealable.
I'm with jsimmons on this one. Given the stakes -- having vs. not having Henderson for the first game of the ACC Tournament, I would've expected to see K all over these refs. He should've been in their face, telling them very loudly and with stomping feet if necessary to emphasize the point, "are you telling me that after looking at that replay for 5 minutes like you did, that there was undoubtedly an intentional blow to Hansbrough's face, despite Henderson not even LOOKING at him at the time, and are you so sure of it that you are 100% comfortable in taking an action that will suspend this young man for the first game of the ACC Tournament?" K seemed to take the whole thing pretty much lying down, and now we don't have our best offensive weapon for the State game. Don't you think the players, not limited to Gerald, would've wanted to see K have his back? I don't get it.

feldspar
03-04-2007, 09:24 PM
Thanks, Overt.

Speaking only for myself, as tonight I am hesitant to lump myself with any other Duke fan, I'll say that the injury on Hansbrough was unfortunate and I wish it hadn't happened. We'll probably never know the "why" of what happened, all we can really do is move on and focus on the next play.

Also, I agree about the foolishness of getting into the "why were the starters in" debate. Coach K, of ALL people, should know that a lead against Duke, even a large one in the last minute of the game, is NEVER safe. Coach K's comments after the game which came across a little accusatory, really surprised me and I wish he hadn't made them. UNC, just as Duke, has every right to try and protect a lead in the last minute of a ball game.

Anyway, thanks for posting.

4everTerping
03-04-2007, 09:24 PM
His walk-ons were in because his starters fouled out using K's Dean-like master plan. There wasn't so many time-outs as his 30 seconds to replace the fouled-out starter. I am just tired of all the posters complaining that UNC didn't run out the clock. They could not, because Duke kept fouling, for whatever reason. P.S. I think Gerald Henderson is a great player and have told all my Duke friends he should get more playing time.

DukeUsul
03-04-2007, 09:29 PM
Well, it's obvious to me that Henderson was in the middle of one of his soon-to-be-patented forceful blocks of the ball (can someone teach him to hit it a bit lighter, so he can block it to a teammate instead of out of bounds) and when the ball was tipped, mid-swing, he tried to alter his swipe. Cleary an unfortunate hard foul in the middle of game play. No intent.

Here are some further rules specifics, this time from Rule 4 of the NCAA rulebook.

Rule 4, Sec 23


Section 23. Fighting
Art. 1. A fight is a confrontation involving one or more players, coaches
or other team personnel wherein (but not limited to) a fist, hand, arm, foot,
knee or leg is used to combatively strike the other individual.
Art. 2. When during a confrontation, an individual attempts to strike another
individual with any of the actions defined in Art. 1, whether there is contact
is irrelevant. The perpetrator shall be deemed to have been involved in a
fight.
Art. 3. When during a confrontation, an individual uses unsportsmanlike
acts or comments which, in the opinion of the official, provoke the other
individual to retaliate by fighting, it shall be ruled that both individuals have
been involved in the fight.
Art. 4. When a physical confrontation has occurred, the officials shall
responsibly determine the individuals who were involved in the fight or left
the bench area to participate.
Art. 5. A combative confrontation may occur when the ball is live, in which
case, it is a flagrant personal foul; or when the ball is dead, and a flagrant
technical foul shall be assessed.
Art. 6. 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.
Art. 7. Anytime an individual uses a closed fist in a non-confrontational
manner, it shall be deemed that the individual has initiated a fighting act and
shall be penalized accordingly.
Art. 8. When any flagrant foul is ruled to be a fight, the fighting penalty
shall be invoked.
Emphasis mine.

I think Art 6 clearly applies. Henderson was in the middle of making a basketball play. He was already up in the air, and therefore severely limited in what he could do when the ball was knocked from Hansbrough's hands. He tried to change the direction of his swing, and couldn't do much in the split second he had. I'd hate to see refs calling a guy going up to block a shot a confrontation. If so, it wasn't the first one in that game.

I'd have no argument with them calling a flagrant foul - but fighting is the incorrect call. And sadly, it can not be corrected. If the refs had thought about it, they could have called it flagrant, which would lead to an ejection. Fine. I can live with that. And then according to Rule 10 (posted earlier) the league is able to review and increase penalties after the fact. So if they think it's a punch, then can suspend him. But unfortunately, like I said Feldspar, I think Hendu got screwed. He should have been ejected, but not suspended.

dukelifer
03-04-2007, 09:29 PM
Again, if you watch it in slow motion, you will see that Henderson's eyes NEVER followed the ball as it was knocked out of Hansbrough's hands.


5. All this stuff on the boards about "what was Hansbrough doing in there with UNC leading by 12" is both hindsight and ridiculous. First off, 12 points is hardly clear-the-bench time, especially considering Duke and its 3-point firepower are on the other side. Secondly, one thing I feel very confident everyone on this board believes is that Hansbrough plays very hard and doesn't take plays off. Although this is obviously speculative, I don't think Hansbrough went into that rebound and shot thinking he was following up to rub it in. The references to the "NC State punch" are absurd.


Those are my thoughts.

Yes- he does not take a play off but you still do not have to go up. You can hold the ball and let them foul you. As for Duke's 3 point fire power- it was all on the bench and I am sure they were fearful of a team who went 7-23 coming back. TH did not take the play off- for sure but that is undertanding game and time. We don't know what was in his head but it is hard to believe he was fearful of a big run by Duke with 12 seconds left. And of course, UNC was bricking from the line (sarcasm) all night long. We will never know what led him to try to go up in that situation rather than holding the ball or kicking out.

I credit the Heels with playing very well and for controlling the game. They deserved to win. But Henderson should have let it go. He and Duke will pay teh price for that decision. Hopefully Duke will rally around this- but losing one of their best weapons the last few games will mean their D better get back to business or they will be having a short time in Florida.

trickshot
03-04-2007, 09:38 PM
The "why are they in the game arguement" is because nc was up 11 with 20 seconds to go.

TheDuke11
03-04-2007, 09:41 PM
ok, completely objective unc fans...
did hansbrough deserve to be suspended when he THREW A PUNCH in the game at ncsu?

what about when he poped Lance Thomas in the game today with a flying elbow?

I wish unc fans would just take the win and stf up.

A-Tex Devil
03-04-2007, 09:42 PM
First, please feel free to post again. The great thing about DBR is honest discourse. Honestly we need some other fans to post occasionally.

I agree there is no problem with Roy keeping TH in at the end. K's done the same.... A LOT.

Still, the elbow was inadvertant, period. Sure he was trying to stop a foul, but this s**t happens in basketball. It's a terrible coincidence that Gerald's elbow hit TH's nose, but at worst it's an intentional foul, but I don't even see that.

It was and accident. Pure and simple. But timing, teams, player who got hurt, etc. etc. is making this bigger than it should be and the refs fell for it and suspended a player for a freak injury. And the thing is, this wouldn't have happened if Tyler had passed it back to the UNC Senior walk on guard du jour to take the three with 5 seconds left.

I feel bad for ol' Tyler but Hendu is getting suspended for an accident on a hard foul, that in all honesty, any team would have defended just as hard.

Peace and please feel free to come back.

SDfan
03-04-2007, 09:44 PM
Except that apparently there is no avenue to appeal to the conference. Once the refs decide it's "fighting" and eject him, that's it. Suspension for the next game is automatic and non-appealable.
I'm with jsimmons on this one. Given the stakes -- having vs. not having Henderson for the first game of the ACC Tournament, I would've expected to see K all over these refs. He should've been in their face, telling them very loudly and with stomping feet if necessary to emphasize the point, "are you telling me that after looking at that replay for 5 minutes like you did, that there was undoubtedly an intentional blow to Hansbrough's face, despite Henderson not even LOOKING at him at the time, and are you so sure of it that you are 100% comfortable in taking an action that will suspend this young man for the first game of the ACC Tournament?" K seemed to take the whole thing pretty much lying down, and now we don't have our best offensive weapon for the State game. Don't you think the players, not limited to Gerald, would've wanted to see K have his back? I don't get it.

I agree. Over the past several seasons when K takes his team to the dean dome, he looks totally uncomfortable being there. He should have have had G's back.

FishStick
03-04-2007, 09:47 PM
I have never taken the time to register until now. First, it has been a long time coming. Second, the end of the game today certainly fired me up, which leads to the following observations (excuse the length, but I could easily have written much more):

Welcome to the boards and I personally look forward to future posts from you!


1. I have watched the Henderson foul on Hansbrough probably 25 times on slo-mo Tivo. I have tried to be objective in my analysis of the play and to appreciate that sports are not played in slow motion. While I don't think Henderson went in trying to viciously hurt Hansbrough, it is clear that he meant to hit him very hard regardless of the effect on the shot. With the ball squirting out to the side of Henderson, he nevertheless followed through with the swing, with his elbow and forearm leading. In my opinion, making contact with the ball was secondary. Again, if you watch it in slow motion, you will see that Henderson's eyes NEVER followed the ball as it was knocked out of Hansbrough's hands.

2. Henderson deserves a suspension. That is unfortunate for Duke, considering he is becoming the go-to scorer that Duke has lacked throughout the year. He and Paulus have been your best players over the past half dozen games or so. Paulus is not much of a playmaker, but he has been a dependable deep-threat.


I disagree with those points, but this issue is being handled on a separate thread.



3. Duke does not lack for talent. I have watched most Duke games this year, and most teams would kill to have players the caliber of McRoberts, Paulus, Nelson, Scheyer, and Henderson on their squad. What Duke does lack is quickness. I would argue this does not equate to talent. Duke has talent. To say otherwise is to discredit the efforts of the other teams that have defeated Duke this year.

We have talent but we don't have identity. Losing Shelden and JJ really has changed the whole character of the team. I agree it's not a lack of talent - but we lack of experience and just overall glue.


4. Duke will make a run in the NCAA tourney. I don't think they have the team to make a final four appearance, but if they are a 4- or 5-seed, they could cause problems for some potential number 1 seeds like Wisconsin or UCLA. I think Kansas, Ohio St. or Florida would easily handle Duke, but Duke is a good enough team to cause headaches for other highly-touted squads.

I hope so. If we make the finals in the ACC and / or the sweet sixteen I think we will have gelled to an impressive level.


5. All this stuff on the boards about "what was Hansbrough doing in there with UNC leading by 12" is both hindsight and ridiculous. First off, 12 points is hardly clear-the-bench time, especially considering Duke and its 3-point firepower are on the other side. Secondly, one thing I feel very confident everyone on this board believes is that Hansbrough plays very hard and doesn't take plays off. Although this is obviously speculative, I don't think Hansbrough went into that rebound and shot thinking he was following up to rub it in. The references to the "NC State punch" are absurd.

6. McRoberts is a real disappointment. Like most of you, I can't quite figure it out. He doesn't have the foul-plagued problems of Shav, but he just doesn't seem to "get it."

12 points and one minute left? I disagree that Hans should have been in there. Contrasting the militaristic style of K to the playground style of Roy is quite interesting. Coach K's teams are taught to run out the clock earlier than many fans like while UNC keeps playing their game until the end. Arguing about whether any players should have been in is pretty pointless at this point as you said. Every fan will have their own opinion.

About McBob, I think he's being asked to do a ton with the loss of Shel and those are some big shoes to fill. Look where Terry was when he came in versus where he is now - I have no doubt that McBob has much more potential in him than we've seen. Let's all hope he comes back next year to prove you wrong (and that Tyler, Ty, and Brandon go pro :D ).

Overt Heelfan
03-04-2007, 09:47 PM
Why were Nelson, Henderson and Scheyer still in the game? The "blowout" factor is a red herring. Yes, it was certainly unlikely Duke would make a comeback, but give me a break. McRoberts fouled out on the play that sent TH to the free throw line in the first place. Duke is unaccustomed to losing games by double digits (to K's credit, he finds a way to keep the game close no matter the discrepancy in talent or circumstances), but it is not becoming to see Duke fans play the oversensitive card here and basically say that TH deserved it because UNC was rubbing it in. If I know anything about Duke fans (yes, I am paid to have a few as friends), it's that you are better than that. I don't think Henderson is a bad kid by any means, but the play speaks for itself. It will only add to the rivalry.

Lord Ash
03-04-2007, 09:47 PM
Seriously, my eyes would tear up too. Lets try to avoid sound like those hick idiots over at Inside Carolina.

bhd28
03-04-2007, 09:49 PM
I have watched the slow-mo myself a LOT. I would have to say he was definitely fouling him. It is hard to say what goes through someones mind, but I know if I were fouling a guy like Hansborough, I would definitely foul him hard enough to try to prevent him from making the basket (he excells at that). I don't know if he was thinking that, though. As for people thinking it was all a conspiracy to try to elbow him or whatever are just silly. He jumps before the TH was fouled (or the shot was blocked or whatever). The contact happens with his mid forearm as he is slapping downward... not an attack anyone is likely to make. I don't think it was dirty.... no more than any hard foul is where the opponent gets a face raked by fingers or something. His hands were in good position to block the shot before it was grabbed by Johnson. At that point, his arms came down and contact was made.

I promise you, if Tyler didn't bleed on this, then it would haven't even been a flagrant foul (it may not have even been intentional - as it wouldn't have really been looked at again). The blood just got everyone worked up. I feel bad that TH got hurt... and I hope he is fully healed by their next game. I feel bad for GH because he will be labeled in town here as a dirty player. Unfortunately, he will definitely hear it at the ACC tourney. Fortunately, I am sure he is a strong kid and will use this as motivation. All in all, just an unfortunate instance for everybody.

I think only good thing that came out of this was that I saw something really funny when I went over to see what IC was saying and I saw an hillarious post. Someone said something along the lines that it took him a 6-pack to calm down after seeing that. Wow... I don't know if that is more funny or sad.

Bluedog
03-04-2007, 09:49 PM
Thanks for posting Overt Heelfan. It's definitely nice to hear a Heel's fan perspective, especially when does respectively. I tend to agree that we shouldn't complain that Roy left the starters in since K does that frequently. However, I would say that we usually try to wind down the clock and move the ball around avoiding an intentional foul. We don't go to the basket to try to get a layup with 20 sec left on the shotclock - and that, I argue, is the difference.

Although some might argue that we move the ball around and wind down the shot clock when we are up by 4 with 2 min to go (ala stall ball), so maybe we don't do it just to be nice, but rather as a strategic ploy ;)

Chard
03-04-2007, 09:49 PM
yeah, he spanked Duke all day long. I don't like him as a player but he is a good one. I hated to see what happened. I look at it as more of an accident than anything else. I've been whacked a couple of times this year. No blood but it still stops you in your tracks.

jipops
03-04-2007, 09:50 PM
I've watched the play about 25 times myself and I have to say I disagree with Overt's analysis a bit. All of this is subjective too.

This play appeared to have two parts to it. Henderson clearly wanted to prevent TH from taking the ball to the rack once again.

Part 1. His arm was raised as he was elevated to try to block the shot.

Part 2. All of a sudden the ball changes direction as Gerald makes the peek of his elevation. The fact that Gerald's eyes did not follow the ball was because he lost track of it, hence the desperate swipe to ensure a bucket was not scored and the subsequent contact.

Based on the ball's sudden change in direction Part 2 came in to play. From there Gerald could have very likely reacted in desperation, not premeditation. Also, was he somehow supposed to stop in midair and either change direction when coming down or turn his shoulder back to the left while magically suspended? Gerald is a great athlete but I don't think anyone can do that.

Gerald's rejection from the game is just as much BS as Alexander Johnson's disqualification in last year's Duke-FSU game. Johnson committed a very hard foul on Shelden but didn't warrant a technical, especially when he backed off Shelden's ensuing confrontation. Same goes for Gerald, it was a hard foul that happened to land on TH's face. There was no malicious intent, there should DEFINITELY NOT be a suspension in this case. Gerald has never come close to exhibiting any behavior in games this year that could lead someone to question the physicality of his play. But just to make most everyone happy there will be a suspension. It's pretty much like politics at this point.

Lord Ash
03-04-2007, 09:51 PM
No one has said TH deserved it.

Many, many discusions have been had in the past about leaving players in when a game is decided and the player risks getting hurt.

HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of versions of this conversation have been had over the years.

In this case, the worse case scenario came true; do you really NOT expect people to discuss it?

But the main point everyone has made is that they don't think Gerald hurt him on purpose. Foul, sure. Hard foul? Sure, why not? But not intentional injury.

You should go try to talk some sense into the folks at Inside Carolina. Good luck with those folks.

newbdisapain
03-04-2007, 09:53 PM
When the crew blew the call against FSU, after reviewing the tape, they were suspended for one game. The crew who "reviewed" the footage and ejected GH just as clearly blew the call, after the same opportunity to review the tape.
Fairness requires that the crew be suspended as they either totally blew the call after time to review it, or failed to look at the available angles.
I suggest that we all contact the ACC to ask that the same punishment be imposed.
Based on the rule citations provided, it appears that the blown call cannot be appealed. Okay, next play, but the refs should face the consequences as they did after the FSU game.

dukie8
03-04-2007, 09:53 PM
First of all, let me say how much I have enjoyed and respected this site over the years, despite being a Chapel Hill undergrad and an unabashed Tar Heel fan. It has routinely been the first website I go to each morning because (a) it consistently has well written ACC basketball news/opinions and (b) it includes coverage of the Heels (largely objective, which is hard to find on school-specific websites). I have even found the message board to be meaningfull, although that the quality of the posts has been diliuted over the past year or so. It certainly is still above the quality of thought of the Inside Carolina boards (a slight compliment to many of you, I'm sure), but it is slipping. That said, I have continued to find value in checking out the Duke fan perspective on things. I think (most) Duke and Carolina fans truly appreciate the nuances of the game.

I have never taken the time to register until now. First, it has been a long time coming. Second, the end of the game today certainly fired me up, which leads to the following observations (excuse the length, but I could easily have written much more):

1. I have watched the Henderson foul on Hansbrough probably 25 times on slo-mo Tivo. I have tried to be objective in my analysis of the play and to appreciate that sports are not played in slow motion. While I don't think Henderson went in trying to viciously hurt Hansbrough, it is clear that he meant to hit him very hard regardless of the effect on the shot. With the ball squirting out to the side of Henderson, he nevertheless followed through with the swing, with his elbow and forearm leading. In my opinion, making contact with the ball was secondary. Again, if you watch it in slow motion, you will see that Henderson's eyes NEVER followed the ball as it was knocked out of Hansbrough's hands.

2. Henderson deserves a suspension. That is unfortunate for Duke, considering he is becoming the go-to scorer that Duke has lacked throughout the year. He and Paulus have been your best players over the past half dozen games or so. Paulus is not much of a playmaker, but he has been a dependable deep-threat.

3. Duke does not lack for talent. I have watched most Duke games this year, and most teams would kill to have players the caliber of McRoberts, Paulus, Nelson, Scheyer, and Henderson on their squad. What Duke does lack is quickness. I would argue this does not equate to talent. Duke has talent. To say otherwise is to discredit the efforts of the other teams that have defeated Duke this year.

4. Duke will make a run in the NCAA tourney. I don't think they have the team to make a final four appearance, but if they are a 4- or 5-seed, they could cause problems for some potential number 1 seeds like Wisconsin or UCLA. I think Kansas, Ohio St. or Florida would easily handle Duke, but Duke is a good enough team to cause headaches for other highly-touted squads.

5. All this stuff on the boards about "what was Hansbrough doing in there with UNC leading by 12" is both hindsight and ridiculous. First off, 12 points is hardly clear-the-bench time, especially considering Duke and its 3-point firepower are on the other side. Secondly, one thing I feel very confident everyone on this board believes is that Hansbrough plays very hard and doesn't take plays off. Although this is obviously speculative, I don't think Hansbrough went into that rebound and shot thinking he was following up to rub it in. The references to the "NC State punch" are absurd.

6. McRoberts is a real disappointment. Like most of you, I can't quite figure it out. He doesn't have the foul-plagued problems of Shav, but he just doesn't seem to "get it."

Those are my thoughts.

um, unc was up by 11 with 20 seconds to go. k cleared the bench and had walkons in so why is it "clear-the-bench time" for the losing coach but not for the winning coach? k certainly kept jj in far too long in many of the blowouts last year, but he never would have had him in in that situation with seniors sitting on the bench (on senior day). at the very least, k would have called timeout to get him out of there, get him an applause and get the seniors in. he has done that numerous times over the years. you get your stars out in that situation to avoid freak accidental injuries, to avoid the other team's goons from roughing them up and to get them an applause. that is coaching 101 and if you heard k on the postgame, he thinks exactly that in no uncertain terms.

what do you think hans was thinking when he tried to go up with the rebound? i know i think he thought that he was going to pad his stats and go for a monster jam against duke's walkons.

gdsballer
03-04-2007, 09:56 PM
I just watched the foul again, and there was absolutely nothing dirty about it at all, Henderson was going completely for the ball and happened to catch Hansbrough's face on the way down. Granted, it hurts to get nailed in the face, but Henderson should definitely not been thrown out. I was at the game, and the only reason they threw him out was for fear of a riot. The crowd was insane, and I know if I saw students being dragged out of the building by police for acting too crazy, Henderson could have been in serious trouble outside the arena. Looking back, he shouldn't have been thrown out for the foul, and the foul was originally on Johnson, but it was probably a safe move regarding the atmosphere at the game.

Overt Heelfan
03-04-2007, 09:59 PM
I don't even subscribe to Inside Carolina. It was bad enough 6 years ago - I'm not sure I want to see what it's turned into now. That's why I check DBR out. I appreciate the differning views. The Henderson foul is certainly subjective. I have just given my interpretation after watching countless replays. Additionally, GH didn't look too upset about the call as we was leaving the court. Maybe he just is more mature than I was at 18.

The bigger issue is that Carolina needs to get a bit tougher, and Duke needs to find an offensive identity. If both of those things happen, we'll only be talking about the Henderson-TH play in future years when ESPN is putting together a montage of footage of the rivalry.

dcarp23
03-04-2007, 10:00 PM
Also, I agree about the foolishness of getting into the "why were the starters in" debate. Coach K, of ALL people, should know that a lead against Duke, even a large one in the last minute of the game, is NEVER safe. Coach K's comments after the game which came across a little accusatory, really surprised me and I wish he hadn't made them. UNC, just as Duke, has every right to try and protect a lead in the last minute of a ball game.

I listened to the Carolina post game on XM, and, to me, this quote was taken out of context. The original quote was, I felt, very benign. K said, "That’s unfortunate, too, that those people were in the game in that play." He wasn't accusing anyone of anything, but I certainly understand why some one thought it might.

Luckily, some reporter who was doing his job asked K what he meant by that and K explained himself. His point was that it was unfortunate that the play occurred at a point in the game where the outcome had been determined. Neither of the players had to be on the court at that point, but they were, and the incident unfortunately occurred.

Even more unfortunately, some other reporter asked Roy about K's quote and completely misquoted him. Roy was understandably upset, but the quote the reporter attributed to K wasn't even close to what was actually said. Just another example of a sports writer more interested in a story than accuracy.

FewFAC
03-04-2007, 10:02 PM
While I can say unqualifiably that I am happy his nose is not broken, karma is a dirty, dirty beast. You play with fire, and you get burned. What goes around came back around indeed.

A-Tex Devil
03-04-2007, 10:04 PM
Dude (Overt Heel Fan) -- I think you'll find most fans aren't arguing why TH was in the game. The thing is, he decided to fight for the offensive board with less than a half minute left and then take the thing right back up. Yeah, he should play hard, etc. etc. etc. but if he's going to play hard like that, expect Duke to as well. The elbow was an f'ing accident. If it had happened with 8 minutes left in the first half, no way he gets ejected.

Sorry about the bloody nose and the teary eyes, but it was an ill timed accident.

That is all.

A-Tex Devil
03-04-2007, 10:12 PM
Won't happen, but I'll take getting the suspension overturned.

dukelifer
03-04-2007, 10:12 PM
Why were Nelson, Henderson and Scheyer still in the game? The "blowout" factor is a red herring. Yes, it was certainly unlikely Duke would make a comeback, but give me a break. McRoberts fouled out on the play that sent TH to the free throw line in the first place. Duke is unaccustomed to losing games by double digits (to K's credit, he finds a way to keep the game close no matter the discrepancy in talent or circumstances), but it is not becoming to see Duke fans play the oversensitive card here and basically say that TH deserved it because UNC was rubbing it in. If I know anything about Duke fans (yes, I am paid to have a few as friends), it's that you are better than that. I don't think Henderson is a bad kid by any means, but the play speaks for itself. It will only add to the rivalry.

Well you have a point- Duke had Pocius and Johnson ( a walk on in) along with the other players you mention. Duke this year has been known for the offensive explosions so UNC should have been scared of Duke's ability to knock down threes in teh closing seconds. Duke has been working on the 12 point play. TH did not deserve to get hit in the face- no one does. But TH decided to risk injury by making a play where he left his feet in a game that was essentially over. But you are right- this will add to the rivalry. You just have to wonder if "never take a play off" Hansbrough will be "oversensitive" to future plays in his direction and maybe get himself ejected. The basketball gods can be cruel.

jipops
03-04-2007, 10:14 PM
I don't even subscribe to Inside Carolina. It was bad enough 6 years ago - I'm not sure I want to see what it's turned into now. That's why I check DBR out. I appreciate the differning views. The Henderson foul is certainly subjective. I have just given my interpretation after watching countless replays. Additionally, GH didn't look too upset about the call as we was leaving the court. Maybe he just is more mature than I was at 18.

The bigger issue is that Carolina needs to get a bit tougher, and Duke needs to find an offensive identity. If both of those things happen, we'll only be talking about the Henderson-TH play in future years when ESPN is putting together a montage of footage of the rivalry.

Really? I thought GH looked scared and embarrassed walking off the floor. Also, notice his look of concern as TH is lying on the floor bleeding. Actually, I think GH is more mature than a lot of 18 year olds. He's been very patient with his playing time over the course of the season, and over the past couple weeks has really blossomed and earned his time.

Can you tell I'm a little upset over this situation? Duke had finally found a player with the ability to create his own shot in addition to being a good defender and now we've lost him for the 1st game of the ACC tournament, and possibly our only game. This kid conducts himself with the kind of class reminiscent of Grant Hill. The whole situation just sucks and I'm sure the media will only make it worse. Some ESPN talking head is already saying GH should be suspended more than one game.

BacchusBlue
03-04-2007, 10:17 PM
Well, here come the columns, and here's Pat Forde's on ESPN. Can't find much to disagree with myself in his description of the incident. And I'd point out one last time that any discussions/arguments over whether T should have been in the game just don't look good and will make this go on even longer.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2787890&sportCat=ncb

DukeBlood
03-04-2007, 10:20 PM
Welecome Heel fan.

Odd time to join though, Alot of trolls now. At one point today I thought this was the ESPN board ;) jk, But it did get out of hand.

I disagree with you on GH. To me it looked as if he felt very bad when TH was on the floor. I also have watched the clip 20+ times and believe he was reacting to the ball changing sudden direction. It wasnt untill the ball was hit out of TH hand that he swiped his hand/forearm downwards.

Sorry about TH, Good luck. Except against Duke.

shadycharacter
03-04-2007, 10:20 PM
I keep reading this biz about UNC shouldn't have had in their star player(s), or if so, that TH shouldn't have tried to dunk that late and up that much.

I regard all this about which opponent's players are still in the game,
and whether or not they try to pad a lead, is completely beside the point.

Frankly, it's the other team's business who they are play and what their players do as long as they do not physically hurt our team members. It's playground kid stuff to point the finger and say, well, so and so shouldn't have done this or done that. Pure kid stuff. If they try to pad a lead and show up their opponents, it may be poor sportsmanship--but our response should be "so what".

Bottom line IMO.....and the only bottom line.....is that there is never, EVER,
any place in sports for intentionally harming another player. NEVER.

I have not seen and have no idea as to the specifics in this particular hit, so have no comment regarding Gerald.

But as fans of a university in whose honor and overall class we believe in like I think we all believe in Duke.....it should be below us and below Duke even to suggest that any kind of intentional physical assault on another player, if it did happen, was justified because that player should not have been in or should not have tried to score. That is zero excuse.

I believe we and Duke would be far better served if DBR fans offer instead a conditional apology.....that we sincerely apologize if it is true our guy tried to hurt yours. Period.

A simple apology, even a conditional one depending on the facts, goes much farther than trying to make a defense through any kind of "you were wrong, too."

gep
03-04-2007, 10:21 PM
They deserved to win. But Henderson should have let it go. He and Duke will pay teh price for that decision.

That's an interesting comment. Hopefully a "balanced" response here... As much as TH should have known game time and score, and hold the rebound or pass out of the lane, maybe GH should also have known game time and score, and should have not tried to go for the block as forcefully as if the dunk or block would have changed the outcome of the game. I know, you should play every second with total effort, but in this case, such a forceful block attempt may not have been warranted. A simple jump with raised hands might have been more appropriate, rather than a forceful swat attempt, which, as has happened, had very unfortunate consequences.

dukelifer
03-04-2007, 10:25 PM
Really? I thought GH looked scared and embarrassed walking off the floor. Also, notice his look of concern as TH is lying on the floor bleeding. Actually, I think GH is more mature than a lot of 18 year olds. He's been very patient with his playing time over the course of the season, and over the past couple weeks has really blossomed and earned his time.

Can you tell I'm a little upset over this situation? Duke had finally found a player with the ability to create his own shot in addition to being a good defender and now we've lost him for the 1st game of the ACC tournament, and possibly our only game. This kid conducts himself with the kind of class reminiscent of Grant Hill. The whole situation just sucks and I'm sure the media will only make it worse. Some ESPN talking head is already saying GH should be suspended more than one game.

I feel the same. Henderson has really started to play the game we all thought he might when he was recruited. He is a smooth player and has tremendous skills. His play today was the best all year. But that said- Duke did not play well with him playing well and I am not sure what that is all about. The others did not raise their game. In fact the few gamed GH has played great- Duke has lost- so that needs to be figured out. Lets hope this does not break his growing confidence- but you never know. Thankfully- TH is not badly injured. If he was- that could have really set GH back- just the guilt alone. Fortunately- he has a father who knows the game and even a buddy on UNC who will hopefully let his teammates know what kind of person GH is. I will bet- GH has already apologized to TH via Wayne. Lets hope this is over and everyone can move on.

Jumbo
03-04-2007, 10:31 PM
I'd just like to welcome Overt Heelfan to the board. I hope that as the week goes on, a lot of this will cool down. Eventually, we know it will, and one of the best features of DBR has always been the presence of intelligent fans from other teams. So, Overt Heelfan, I hope you'll stick around and start posting more often.

I haven't posted anything on the Henderson thing, but I'll just say this: Anyone who has played basketball before, and thinks that was an intentional attempt to injure Hansbrough, is just wrong. I can't count the number of times I've gotten smacked in the beak under the hoop, or smacked someone else, for that matter. The reverse angle shows what happened perfectly -- Henderson went for a vicious swat (he had clean one earlier in the game; so did Wright with as much of a windeup), the ball was right in front of Hansbrough's face, Johnson knocked the ball away, and by the time Henderson followed through, the ball wasn't protecting his face anymore. Plays like that happen every day in every local gym during any pickup game. It was not an intent to injure. If Hess wanted to call it a flagrant foul, that's fine, but there was absolutely no reason to eject Henderson. That decision should have been left up to the ACC. Instead, Hess was influenced by the crowd and arrived at a rash judgment, and now the league can't do anything about it, no matter what Swofford sees on video. In the end, I think the ACC should suspend Hess and offer an apology in the same way that the league (correctly) penalized the refs for the Alexander Johnson situation last year.

WiJoe
03-04-2007, 10:32 PM
not sure if this will work, but here's the schnoz.

can be seen at thred titled: "Mr Hansbrough's nose not broken"

http://espn-ak.starwave.com/photo/2007/0304/ncb_u_tylerhansbrough_412.jpg

A-Tex Devil
03-04-2007, 10:39 PM
Whatever, dude. No problem with TH still in the game. If he wants to go up and fight for the offensive board, win it and then take it back up for the dunk in the last 20 seconds of a lst game, Duke can at least defend him, right?

The elbow was an A-C-C-I-D-E-N-T by a guy playing the same interior defense he was playing all night. If it happens with 8 minutes left in the first half, TH is just crying, not crying and trying to pretend he's gonna fight someone. It sucks it happened, but b-ball is physical.

But yes... I'll offer a conditional apology... "I sincerely apologize if it is true our guy tried to hurt yours." It's not true.

I feel bad Tyler got a bloody nose. The game didn't need it. But I'm not "apologetic" about it. I'm sure Hendu feels awful. Especially because he got a bullsh*t suspension out of it.

RepoMan
03-04-2007, 10:40 PM
Word.

What Jumbo said.

Frankly, it was about time someone tried to aggressively contest the Heels superior interior play. That's not saying it was time to try to injure someone, but to make a physical play. We gave away far too many uncontested busckets. Henderson competed the whole game, and I hope this doesn't cause him to second guess himself.

tommy
03-04-2007, 10:44 PM
That's plain silly. There would be no need for K to suspend GH, because he's already suspended by the league. But if you're seriously asserting that K "knew it was intentional," you've obviously never played any pickup or organized basketball, and probably haven't watched much either. That kind of thing happens ALL the time. It's called an accident. As far as coaches having class, the real opportunity to show some class is now Roy's. He is the one who knows the blow was NOT intentional. If he had some class, he would call the league office and tell them so, and urge they rescind any suspension.

dukelifer
03-04-2007, 10:50 PM
I keep reading this biz about UNC shouldn't have had in their star player(s), or if so, that TH shouldn't have tried to dunk that late and up that much.

I regard all this about which opponent's players are still in the game,
and whether or not they try to pad a lead, is completely beside the point.

Frankly, it's the other team's business who they are play and what their players do as long as they do not physically hurt our team members. It's playground kid stuff to point the finger and say, well, so and so shouldn't have done this or done that. Pure kid stuff. If they try to pad a lead and show up their opponents, it may be poor sportsmanship--but our response should be "so what".

Bottom line IMO.....and the only bottom line.....is that there is never, EVER,
any place in sports for intentionally harming another player. NEVER.

I have not seen and have no idea as to the specifics in this particular hit, so have no comment regarding Gerald.

But as fans of a university in whose honor and overall class we believe in like I think we all believe in Duke.....it should be below us and below Duke even to suggest that any kind of intentional physical assault on another player, if it did happen, was justified because that player should not have been in or should not have tried to score. That is zero excuse.

I believe we and Duke would be far better served if DBR fans offer instead a conditional apology.....that we sincerely apologize if it is true our guy tried to hurt yours. Period.

A simple apology, even a conditional one depending on the facts, goes much farther than trying to make a defense through any kind of "you were wrong, too."

By going up in that situation, TH intended to score when he could have held the ball. GH intended to swat the BALL not TH. By TH going up and GH swatting down- an accident happen. Nobody intended to get hurt or hurt someone. If TH goes up and try to score in that situation- then GH can swat it back. No apologies because that is basketball. But just as TH should NOT have gone up- GH could have stayed put. It was a bang- bang play. Both players paid a price for their mistakes. TH got his face bloodied and GH got suspended. GH ultimately got the worse of it and so did Duke. TH will get some tender loving care from some coed and be the front story on ESPN and GH will be labeled a thug for just doing what 99% of all players would do in that situation- block a shot of a player trying to score up by 12 with 20 seconds to go and the game in hand. TH got hurt and nobody wants to see that- but it was an accident resulting from the intentional act to block a shot- pure and simple.

OZZIE4DUKE
03-04-2007, 10:52 PM
First of all, let me say how much I have enjoyed and respected this site over the years, despite being a Chapel Hill undergrad and an unabashed Tar Heel fan. It has routinely been the first website I go to each morning because (a) it consistently has well written ACC basketball news/opinions and (b) it includes coverage of the Heels (largely objective, which is hard to find on school-specific websites). I have even found the message board to be meaningfull, although that the quality of the posts has been diliuted over the past year or so. It certainly is still above the quality of thought of the Inside Carolina boards (a slight compliment to many of you, I'm sure), but it is slipping. That said, I have continued to find value in checking out the Duke fan perspective on things. I think (most) Duke and Carolina fans truly appreciate the nuances of the game.

I have never taken the time to register until now. First, it has been a long time coming. Second, the end of the game today certainly fired me up, which leads to the following observations (excuse the length, but I could easily have written much more):

5. All this stuff on the boards about "what was Hansbrough doing in there with UNC leading by 12" is both hindsight and ridiculous. First off, 12 points is hardly clear-the-bench time, especially considering Duke and its 3-point firepower are on the other side. Secondly, one thing I feel very confident everyone on this board believes is that Hansbrough plays very hard and doesn't take plays off. Although this is obviously speculative, I don't think Hansbrough went into that rebound and shot thinking he was following up to rub it in. The references to the "NC State punch" are absurd.

Those are my thoughts.

First, welcome to the board. Over the years there have been several carolina fans who have been semi-regular posters (spcifically thinking about our favorite fisherman, Wheat) and we welcome reasonable, intelligent visiting posters with open arms.

As for point 5 above, when you led by 12 with about 1:30 left, I certainly didn't think the game was over and I'm sure K didn't either. I remember our "gone in 54 seconds game" vs. Maryland when we scored 10 points in the last 54 seconds to tie it, and then win it in overtime. I remember (gag, choke, cough) the 8 points in 17 seconds game in Carmichael in 1974, when you tied it without the benefit of the three point shot. I remember 1995, the "Capel shot game" in Cameron, when Capel's 3 not only tied it at the end of the first OT, but capped a 10 point comeback in 17 seconds (you won it in the second OT). Duke and carolina both have a long history of titanic comebacks in the last few seconds of a game.

Duke's recent "motis operendi" when having significant leads in the last minute of the game, whether the starters are in or walkons, is to dribble out near mid court to run the time off, and not shoot unless the shot clock was getting ready to expire. I'm not talking about "stall ball" in semi-close games as a long-term offensive strategy with several minutes left (which everyone here knows I hate), but about not running up the score unnecessarily on a beaten opponent. We even had early season games this year where we came close to breaking the 100 point level, but the walkons dribbled out near the midcourt line rather than try to score - per K's instructions, to the minor chagrin of fans who like to see that triple digit score. Of course, we don't have a deal with Bojangles either ;) And quite honestly, I'm not anymore hurt losing by 18 than I am by losing by 12, or 5, so running the score up by second line players, or young players trying to learn their way does not bother me.

In the end, with 15 seconds left and the lead at 12, if TH had passed out to the wing when he grabbed that last rebound, his shnoz wouldn't look like Ol' Deano's tonight. But I don't think that Gerald Henderson intentionally smacked him in the nose. That's not in his character. Accidents happen in the heat of battle, and both players were playing hard when it was time to back off.

Susan
03-04-2007, 11:18 PM
Did anyone watch College Gamenight tonight and hear Len Elmore's thoughts? He thinks Henderson not only should have been suspended for one game, but he thinks he ought to have to sit out if Duke HAPPENS to play UNC again in the ACC tourney final. Now THERE's a thought. :confused: (An idiotic one...)

gdsballer
03-04-2007, 11:42 PM
Here's a thought: The foul wasn't on Henderson in the first place. It would've been on Johnson if Henderson hadn't gone up to block the shot. I was at the game, and it was for the own well-being of either Henderson, the Duke players and staff, or the referees that he was tossed, because there would have(not might have) been a riot. The crowd was about to blow during the few minutes while the refs discussed, and being a Duke fan, I was honestly too scared to say a word. Smart call by the refs in regard to safety, not in regard it really should have been called.

crimsonandblue
03-04-2007, 11:51 PM
Longar Longar Suspension (http://www.big12sports.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/011207aaa.html)

The link above is to the Big XII's enforcement action of a 2 game suspension to Longar Longar for swinging an elbow to clear some space out on the wing and striking a Texas Tech player in the face. It was deemed unintentional, but still a violation sufficient to support the suspension.

I can see that in this case. It seemed to me that Henderson went up with the intent to make a hard foul and/or crushing block and did not much care where the ball was. To me, that indifference and going high on someone is the type of play that can't be allowed. I mean, safeties in football aren't allowed to do what Henderson did and intent doesn't matter there either.

I disagree with Jumbo that this is an everyday play. That kind of act on a pickup court will lead to a fight 99 percent of the time. That's assuming the guy getting smashed can stand up and walk.

I've never seen this board like this. Polls of "Who's your favorite player NOW?" Heh heh. Wink wink. Cracking on Hansbrough for crying? Uh, have you ever been whacked across the bridge of the nose? Your eyes involuntarily water and Hansbrough stood up, sucked up his own blood and walked off the court. The guy's anything but a crybaby. He's a complete tool, but no puss.

Unbelievable that I've been put in a position of defending UNC. Just sickening.

HK Dukie
03-05-2007, 12:01 AM
well crimson, I voted for Henderson....first because of the way he played in the first 39 minutes, 45 seconds, and second because well, you know.

someone on this board made a good point about safety. I have no problem with the refs ejecting Henderson in an already decided game with just 15 seconds left. What I do have a problem with is them impacting the next game for Duke, because of their fear doing the right thing. This is just an example where the rule just isn't fair.

But like I said earlier, let's just use this as a rallying cry. The whole world seems out for blood anyway, especially those in the media, the entire season long. They think we are done. Boy, are they wrong.

Jumbo
03-05-2007, 12:11 AM
I disagree with Jumbo that this is an everyday play. That kind of act on a pickup court will lead to a fight 99 percent of the time. That's assuming the guy getting smashed can stand up and walk.


We'll have to agree to disagree, then. Again, I can't tell you how many times I've been on either side of that, let alone been on the court when that has happened. Everything is just more intense when you have guys of this size and strength playing. But in a game where stray elbows are facts of life and players wind up for emphatic blocks, incidents like these are standard operating procedure.
It's much more obvious when a player is actually trying to hurt another one. Usually it involves using both arms (which Gerald didn't do) or actually grabbing hold of a guy, usually from behind (which Gerald also didn't do). The reverse-angle replay clinches it for me. It's just so clear what happened as a result of Johnson batting the ball away.

BuschDevil
03-05-2007, 12:29 AM
Welcome to the forum, Overt Heelfan. Reasonable & civil fans of any team are always good to have around. Keep posting. I hope all will respond in kind.

The stuff about what players were still in the game are pointless. Both had some starters in. Both kept playing until the very end. Hans kept playing, I doubt he has it in his nature to stop. I think he gets away with too much pushing & shoving, and the simple fact that he plays for unc makes him annoying, but I don't think he did anything wrong here. As for his crying, I wouldn't call it that. Rather, I think his eyes watered, as anybody's would when in pain, and the blood pouring into his mouth made it appear as though his lip were quivering. I have had the exact same thing happen to me. No fun.
On G's actions, I see no reason to think it was in any way intentional. He kept playing hard to the end, just like Hans. It was, in my opinion, simply an accident. He looked a liitle shocked to me as he left the court. I hate that the refs made an error in terming it as a 'combative foul', but not much we can do about that now. What I hate more is how the media will twist this around to raise their ratings or readership. The less civil fans of the world (like those at IC, perhaps) will eat it up. I do think that the players involved have already talked, and let's not forget that G and Ellington are close friends, so everything is probably fine between the players. And the coaches have undoubtedly done the same, as they like and respect one another. I only wish the fans all had the same respect for one another.

Go Duke!!!!

ChiDevil
03-05-2007, 12:49 AM
I see an unquestionable accident. I checked out the UNC boards, and they see an unabashed attempt to break TH's nose ("G's eyes were closed in anticipation of impact"). We're going to see what we want to see. That's part of the fun of being rabid fans. I hope TH is OK. I hope GH is OK. I don't expect any sympathy or understanding from UNC fans, but I hope the players and coaches can all get it together in time for the ACC tourney. NCAA basketball is just better when Duke and UNC are both playing well wihtout any excuses!

As for the "he shouldn't have been in" discussion . . . . I shudder to think of the day when teams start pulling their starters out against us!!!! Leave 'em in as long as you want.

GO DUKE!

shadycharacter
03-05-2007, 01:05 AM
Good post, I agree.

When both teams are still playing hard, and there is any possbility the behind team could catch up, to me it's something of an insult to the behind team if the ahead team pulls its starters. As if to say, "you guys aren't good enough to be any threat to us."

devilish
03-05-2007, 06:12 AM
To quote Carlton Tudor in the News and Observer:

"To me, it looked like a cheap shot by Henderson, and I didn't see anything on television replays to change my mind.

Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski said it wasn't intentional, which is no doubt correct in the sense that it wasn't premeditated. There's no way that Henderson waded through more than 39 minutes of playing time waiting for just the right moment to rip open the nose of the archrival's superstar.

But Henderson's hit was so aggressive and so obviously directed toward Hansbrough's face that it's only right a heavy punishment should be handed out."

I'm just wondering Carlton, how do you give an unintentional cheap shot?

Link: http://www.newsobserver.com/758/story/549891.html

devildownunder
03-05-2007, 06:42 AM
Did anyone watch College Gamenight tonight and hear Len Elmore's thoughts? He thinks Henderson not only should have been suspended for one game, but he thinks he ought to have to sit out if Duke HAPPENS to play UNC again in the ACC tourney final. Now THERE's a thought. :confused: (An idiotic one...)

It that's the case then that is absurd. I have come to LE's defense many times on this board but after reading this, if this is indeed what he said, I must conclude that he has lost his objectivity with respect to the blue devils. That's really sad because he seems to be an intelligent man.

devildownunder
03-05-2007, 06:47 AM
And yet, we always do dribble out the clock in the final minutes. It's a difference in philosophy, I understand. But one way to avoid potentially fiery incidents is to not try to run up the score against a rival when the game is clearly over.

I've never been rational about those unc games. Seriously. I may need help.

devildownunder
03-05-2007, 06:55 AM
we are catching a lot of heat on espn radio about the play.

dth.

Of course we are. Duke is the most hated sports program/franchise in north america today, with the possible exception of the yankees. And all of the people who live to see us lose are loving this (bogus) opportunity to label us thugs and cheapshot artists.

I just hope GH can channel all of the venom he's going to have directed his way over the next 2 or three years into a stellar career at Duke. He has to develop a thick skin to survive.

feldspar
03-05-2007, 07:37 AM
I've never seen this board like this. Polls of "Who's your favorite player NOW?" Heh heh. Wink wink. Cracking on Hansbrough for crying? Uh, have you ever been whacked across the bridge of the nose? Your eyes involuntarily water and Hansbrough stood up, sucked up his own blood and walked off the court. The guy's anything but a crybaby. He's a complete tool, but no puss.

Unbelievable that I've been put in a position of defending UNC. Just sickening.

A-freaking-men.

feldspar
03-05-2007, 07:40 AM
We'll have to agree to disagree, then. Again, I can't tell you how many times I've been on either side of that, let alone been on the court when that has happened. Everything is just more intense when you have guys of this size and strength playing. But in a game where stray elbows are facts of life and players wind up for emphatic blocks, incidents like these are standard operating procedure.
It's much more obvious when a player is actually trying to hurt another one. Usually it involves using both arms (which Gerald didn't do) or actually grabbing hold of a guy, usually from behind (which Gerald also didn't do). The reverse-angle replay clinches it for me. It's just so clear what happened as a result of Johnson batting the ball away.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Gerald was trying to hurt TH, though Jumbo. I think the point is that it's quite obvious that Henderson wanted to foul TH, and foul him hard. Or, at the VERY least, block the ball right back into his face with the force of all the frustration he must have been feeling.

This thing turns out way differently if that ball doesn't come loose. But it did, and GH needs to face the consequences of that - and on some level so do all of us as Duke fans.

This was no normal shot block attempt, and if you fancy yourself any type of objective basketball analyst, I think you will admit that. It was an overly aggressive move that was punished by an overly aggressive sentence.

Susan
03-05-2007, 08:02 AM
It that's the case then that is absurd. I have come to LE's defense many times on this board but after reading this, if this is indeed what he said, I must conclude that he has lost his objectivity with respect to the blue devils. That's really sad because he seems to be an intelligent man.

While I may post sporadically, I've posted on these boards for at least the past 8 years, and I wouldn't make this up. I may have been tired at midnight when I watched this, but I didn't dream it. While Elmore said the shot may not have been intentional, the foul was so egregious that Henderson ought to sit out a UNC-Duke rematch in the ACC championship if it happens. (He may have said "probably ought to sit out"--I can't remember.) It's even been brought up on the UVA boards.

http://www.thesabre.com/message_board/basketball/2007/March/5/861361.php

alteran
03-05-2007, 08:08 AM
The whole reason the play/foul came out so awkward is because Johnson hacks Hansbrough first and does get the ball and the ball starts going down. Henderson turns his body in the air as his head clearly follows the flight of the ball. This is why his elbow comes around/down and hits Hansbrough. He is clearly not looking at Hansbrough when he hits him.

The league office should see that this is clearly not intentional and will probably not suspend Henderson.
The problem is that the league office is much more interested in giving red meat to the conspiracy theorists and haters these days than actually making legitimate decisions regarding Duke.

The league sent a loud and clear message to ACC officials after the FSU double technical game last year when they suspended the officials for an incorrect but very routine double-technical call. That message was-- "while we've always backed you officials in public before on controversial judgment calls, if you make controversial judgment calls favoring Duke, you're on your own."

It's clear Carl Hess got the message.

There's no way the ACC will intercede to stop the suspension.

JWill2001
03-05-2007, 08:30 AM
Len Elmore, on College GameNight last night, did suggest that G sit out the rematch if we meet Kerlina in the ACC finals. Heck! If they are so worried about TH's safety, let TH sit out the game. This could impact officiating in years to come WRT G. That is tough.

DankeShane
03-05-2007, 08:32 AM
Len Elmore, on College GameNight last night, did suggest that G sit out the rematch if we meet Kerlina in the ACC finals. Heck! If they are so worried about TH's safety, let TH sit out the game. This could impact officiating in years to come WRT G. That is tough.

Maybe the refs will be so focused on G's play, they'll forget about Zoubeck and not call any more preemptive travels...

alteran
03-05-2007, 08:36 AM
This thing turns out way differently if that ball doesn't come loose. But it did, and GH needs to face the consequences of that - and on some level so do all of us as Duke fans.

This was no normal shot block attempt, and if you fancy yourself any type of objective basketball analyst, I think you will admit that. It was an overly aggressive move that was punished by an overly aggressive sentence.
I would essentially agree with this, except to say that it was an unnecessary, aggressive, and unsportsmanlike dunk attempt, followed by an overly aggressive block attempt, followed by an unfortunate call.

_Gary
03-05-2007, 08:40 AM
This thing turns out way differently if that ball doesn't come loose. But it did, and GH needs to face the consequences of that - and on some level so do all of us as Duke fans.

This was no normal shot block attempt, and if you fancy yourself any type of objective basketball analyst, I think you will admit that. It was an overly aggressive move that was punished by an overly aggressive sentence.

It may have been an aggressive basketball move, but I'll nicely suggest that it's you who has lost all sense of objective basketball analysis if you think the sentence matches the "crime." No way, no how does this happen if Duke isn't involved. This entire officiating thing has roots that go back a number of years, and culminated last year with the bogus suspension of the refs. Again, I suggest that if you can't see that Hess was unduly influenced by many factors (those suspensions, the ACC's clear double standard concerning Duke, Roy Williams protests, the UNC crowd going ballistic) then you have lost your objectivity. If you think that GH was trying to hurt Hansblah then you have to be a mind-reader. He said categorically that he was NOT trying to hurt the kid. So unless you are calling him a liar, I'd suggest that your analysis is slightly off base.

Gary

feldspar
03-05-2007, 08:42 AM
It may have been an aggressive basketball move, but I'll nicely suggest that it's you who has lost all sense of objective basketball analysis if you think the sentence matches the "crime." No way, no how does this happen if Duke isn't involved. This entire officiating thing has roots that go back a number of years, and culminated last year with the bogus suspension of the refs. Again, I suggest that if you can't see that Hess was unduly influenced by many factors (those suspensions, the ACC's clear double standard concerning Duke, Roy Williams protests, the UNC crowd going ballistic) then you have lost your objectivity. If you think that GH was trying to hurt Hansblah then you have to be a mind-reader. He said categorically that he was NOT trying to hurt the kid. So unless you are calling him a liar, I'd suggest that your analysis is slightly off base.

Ok, Gary.

http://www.impawards.com/1997/posters/conspiracy_theory.jpg
:rolleyes:

jeff
03-05-2007, 08:42 AM
Any school other than Duke it would be reviewed.

feldspar
03-05-2007, 08:44 AM
Any school other than Duke it would be reviewed.

I beg to differ. NCAA rules prohibit it.

-jk
03-05-2007, 08:49 AM
I beg to differ. NCAA rules prohibit it.

I think that if the refs thought there was a "fight" or "combative" action, the refs are allowed to review to be sure. (NCAA 2007 basketball rules: Rule 2, Section 5)

-jk

_Gary
03-05-2007, 08:52 AM
Any school other than Duke it would be reviewed.

Again, there is no question whatsoever that we've seen Duke get the short end of the stick two years in a row now in the ACC. And it's definitely been fueled by the "Duke gets all the calls" perception that has been played up ad nauseam over the last few years.

I have no idea whether the ACC can "legally" look at this or not. But I put it back on the officiating crew right there at the game. Based on last year, that is something the ACC could look into (possibly suspending the crew for making such a call on Henderson). They won't, but they could based on precedent.

Gary

feldspar
03-05-2007, 08:52 AM
I think that if the refs thought there was a "fight" or "combative" action, the refs are allowed to review to be sure. (NCAA 2007 basketball rules: Rule 2, Section 5)

-jk

I was posting under the assumption that jeff meant it would be reviewed by the conference.

If he meant reviewed during the game, I agree. No way a bloody nose happens on the court and you don't go to the monitor.

mph
03-05-2007, 09:03 AM
Last night when I went to bed I was sure of a several things. First, G wasn't trying to hit TH in the face. Second, there was a lot of frustration built into G's attempted block. I felt the ejection was absolutely necessary given the circumstances (hard foul, blood on the floor, irate fans) but I was undecided on the appropriateness of the suspension.

After more thought, I believe the suspension is reasonable. Obviously reasonable (and unreasonable) people can disagree about G's thinking, but it looks to me as if G was as interested in venting as he was in actually blocking the shot. Even though I believe there's no intent to hurt TH, the refs could reasonably interpret his actions as confrontational. Again, given the degree of frustration built into G's swing, I can't fault the officials for concluding it was a confrontational act. At a minimum the calls for the suspensions of the officiating crew are off-base. This wasn't even close to as bad a call as last year's FSU game.

The other complaints are irrelevant and silly. It doesn't matter why TH was in the game, just like it doesn't matter why G was in the game. It certainly doesn't matter that a walk on took a 3.

On a positive note, we should all be thrilled with the way G is playing. Here's hoping he picks up where he left off.

Duvall
03-05-2007, 09:06 AM
Last night when I went to bed I was sure of a several things. First, G wasn't trying to hit TH in the face. Second, there was a lot of frustration built into G's attempted block. I felt the ejection was absolutely necessary given the circumstances (hard foul, blood on the floor, irate fans) but I was undecided on the appropriateness of the suspension.

After more thought, I believe the suspension is reasonable. Obviously reasonable (and unreasonable) people can disagree about G's thinking, but it looks to me as if G was as interested in venting as he was in actually blocking the shot. Even though I believe there's no intent to hurt TH, the refs could reasonably interpret his actions as confrontational. Again, given the degree of frustration built into G's swing, I can't fault the officials for concluding it was a confrontational act. At a minimum the calls for the suspensions of the officiating crew are off-base. This wasn't even close to as bad a call as last year's FSU game.

The other complaints are irrelevant and silly. It doesn't matter why TH was in the game, just like it doesn't matter why G was in the game. It certainly doesn't matter that a walk on took a 3.


I think this is correct, particularly the last bit. Players can be and are suspended for reckless acts, and that's a reasonable interpretation of what happened yesterday.

feldspar
03-05-2007, 09:07 AM
After more thought, I believe the suspension is reasonable. Obviously reasonable (and unreasonable) people can disagree about G's thinking, but it looks to me as if G was as interested in venting as he was in actually blocking the shot. Even though I believe there's no intent to hurt TH, the refs could reasonably interpret his actions as confrontational. Again, given the degree of frustration built into G's swing, I can't fault the officials for concluding it was a confrontational act. At a minimum the calls for the suspensions of the officiating crew are off-base. This wasn't even close to as bad a call as last year's FSU game.

Welcome to the island, mph! Pull up a palm tree.

DankeShane
03-05-2007, 09:27 AM
I don't really know why people are so bent out of shape over the suspension. If you ask me, that's insignificant compared to the fact that we now have to put up with one more highlight for the ESPN Duke/UNC Ultimate Rivalry daisy chain they always whip up when the teams play. The fact that there is blood will mean we'll be seeing it forever, and in the steady rotation for the next 15 years or so.

I feel like I'm always trying to win the hearts and minds of the non-Duke college basketball fans, with everyone out there collectively hating on Duke. Unfortunately, it would be about as successful as me walking through the mountainous region of Pakistan trying to build up some pro-US sentiment. This is just more fuel on the fire and you won't be able to argue your way out of it so I've just resigned myself to that fact. The suspension is an afterthought as far as I'm concerned.

DukeUsul
03-05-2007, 09:36 AM
I think this is correct, particularly the last bit. Players can be and are suspended for reckless acts, and that's a reasonable interpretation of what happened yesterday.

But they didn't call it a reckless act. It was ruled a "fight." Was it? Wasn't like any other fight I've seen. It was flagrant and correctly resulted in an ejection, but a fight it was not.

In response to Jeff et al. on the reviewing question, the officials may review a "fight" on tape to identify who "threw a punch" during a game. But once the determination of a fight and the issuance of a suspension is made, the league may not take that back (NCAA rule book, Rule 10). The league may only review fighting to increase penalties or change a fighting penalty to the correct player if it was assessed incorrectly.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
03-05-2007, 09:56 AM
it was a hard foul, an unfortunate, and unnecessary foul, but not malicious. go strong and hard for the ball even if there's 14 seconds on the clock.

having said all that, the refs have to be overly careful in regards to the safety of the players. duke/unc is notoriously hot blooded and has gotten out of hand in the past. the refs had no choice but to toss him out. the unfortunate effect is that now he's out for the first game of the tournament.

/looks like the tournament's going to go to maryland anyway, unless someone can ever get in front of strawberry.

jacone21
03-05-2007, 09:58 AM
I don't really know why people are so bent out of shape over the suspension. If you ask me, that's insignificant compared to the fact that we now have to put up with one more highlight for the ESPN Duke/UNC Ultimate Rivalry daisy chain they always whip up when the teams play. The fact that there is blood will mean we'll be seeing it forever, and in the steady rotation for the next 15 years or so.

I feel like I'm always trying to win the hearts and minds of the non-Duke college basketball fans, with everyone out there collectively hating on Duke. Unfortunately, it would be about as successful as me walking through the mountainous region of Pakistan trying to build up some pro-US sentiment. This is just more fuel on the fire and you won't be able to argue your way out of it so I've just resigned myself to that fact. The suspension is an afterthought as far as I'm concerned.

This is what is so discouraging for me about the last few years. It seems like we just continue to have this non-stop string of controveries that get seized upon and blown all out of proportion. If we win, there's a freaking controversy. If we lose, there's some more controversy. If Coach K says one thing, the context is adjusted to create controversy. Melchionni gets kicked in the face, and it's a 3 second replay, never mentioned again. But let anything make Duke look bad, and you have ESPN, myriad hack writers, and 1000000000 youtube amateur producers piling on. It just never stops these days. I guess it's nice to have attention, because it means you've been successful, but damn it get's old being cast as Darth Vader every week.

BacchusBlue
03-05-2007, 10:10 AM
Welcome to the island, mph! Pull up a palm tree.

I've got to join the island too. Forget intent and ignore how good a kid he is for the moment. A league has no real choice but to police this stuff. The most dangerous time for a brawl occurs at the end of a heated game when someone on the frustrated losing team hits someone really hard. Try the brawl at Auburn Hills, the Knicks-Nuggets fight a couple of months ago and many others. Once that happens, the league has to send a message. It's not personal, but upon reflection, it should be pretty obvious as to why it's automatic. Doesn't mean we can't defend him as a person, but this decision is pretty reasonable and probably necessary. And hell, it's only for the NC State game. It all could have been much worse.

smklin
03-05-2007, 10:22 AM
The other complaints are irrelevant and silly. It doesn't matter why TH was in the game, just like it doesn't matter why G was in the game. It certainly doesn't matter that a walk on took a 3.

I completely disagree. The most i've ever hated carolina was after watching those thugs throw down a fast break dunk then the next possession ellington goes for a highlight reel dunk. duke NEVER does that. EVER.

they run the clock out. if they get a fast break they pull it out and take some time off the clock. i dont care if the starters are in. that's no big deal. what i care about is having to watch my team's down 15 with under half a minute left to go and the other team's drying to dunk offensive boards, jacking up 3s on inbounds plays and generally playing with NO class and NO sportsmanship.

when it finally came down to it DUKE, the losing team, had to run out the last 6 or 7 seconds off the clock. that should never happen.

gdsballer
03-05-2007, 10:24 AM
I would just like to say that Billy Packer was the man who started the "Duke gets all the calls" deal in the 01 national title game, but he was defending Henderson and Duke last night, I don't know if anyone else noticed.

gdsballer
03-05-2007, 10:26 AM
thats a good point smklin, i dont agree with the "starters in" stuff but they shouldnt have been trying to dunk...maybe it was because of senior night, but ellington is a freshman and ginyard is a sophmore

ChrisP
03-05-2007, 10:56 AM
Just read a report on MSNBC saying TH has a "non-displaced fracture" in his nose and will likely wear a mask during the ACC tourney. I'm sure that some Carolina fans will use this as "proof" that Henderson's shot was intentional.

Susan
03-05-2007, 10:57 AM
That Hansbrough indeed DID break his nose after all. He's being fitted with THE MASK and will play in UNC's next game.

Cavlaw
03-05-2007, 11:03 AM
Just read a report on MSNBC saying TH has a "non-displaced fracture" in his nose and will likely wear a mask during the ACC tourney. I'm sure that some Carolina fans will use this as "proof" that Henderson's shot was intentional.
Sad to see that. While I don't like watching Carolina win, I don't like watching any team lose (or struggle) because of injury.

grossbus
03-05-2007, 11:04 AM
any time a nose bleeds like that after a blow, it is probably broken.

he may be scarier looking with a mask on than he normally is.

SMO
03-05-2007, 11:12 AM
When you said "THE MASK" this is all I could think of. Maybe T-Psycho will sing Cuba Pete at the ACC Tourney!16


That Hansbrough indeed DID break his nose after all. He's being fitted with THE MASK and will play in UNC's next game.

SMO
03-05-2007, 11:16 AM
Or maybe he'll cash in and go to the NBA after this season!17


That Hansbrough indeed DID break his nose after all. He's being fitted with THE MASK and will play in UNC's next game.

Susan
03-05-2007, 11:16 AM
He'll probably need a root canal too, according to the Charlotte Observer.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/456/story/40676.html