Justified anger for football news story?

[Kimist]

The following appeared in the Sunday edition of the News & Observer as part of a report on the Duke-unc football game:

Five years later and in a different sport, North Carolina linebacker Zach Brown delivered some measure of delayed retribution for Gerald Henderson's elbow to the nose of Tyler Hansbrough, administering a fearsome helmet-to-helmet hit to Duke quarterback Sean Renfree.

The hit, moments after the quarterback released a 45-yard touchdown pass, left Renfree sprawled on the field for a few minutes and eventually knocked him out of the game with numbness and swelling in his throwing hand.

I am more than accustomed to a combination of bias and/or Duke hate in the local press, but this "observation" seemed a bit outside the norm.

Is this so-called journalist equating a bloody nose to a possible concussion?? :mad:

The author is Luke DeCock of the N&O.

k

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

The following appeared in the Sunday edition of the News & Observer as part of a report on the Duke-unc football game:

Five years later and in a different sport, North Carolina linebacker Zach Brown delivered some measure of delayed retribution for Gerald Henderson's elbow to the nose of Tyler Hansbrough, administering a fearsome helmet-to-helmet hit to Duke quarterback Sean Renfree.

The hit, moments after the quarterback released a 45-yard touchdown pass, left Renfree sprawled on the field for a few minutes and eventually knocked him out of the game with numbness and swelling in his throwing hand.

I am more than accustomed to a combination of bias and/or Duke hate in the local press, but this "observation" seemed a bit outside the norm.

Is this so-called journalist equating a bloody nose to a possible concussion?? :mad:

The author is Luke DeCock of the N&O.

k

This is journalistic fantasy, similar to the fantasy engaged in by fans.

Glorifying the helmet to helmet hit was very wrong in view of the danger involved and the NCAA emphasis on not allowing such things.

[CDu]

The following appeared in the Sunday edition of the News & Observer as part of a report on the Duke-unc football game:

Five years later and in a different sport, North Carolina linebacker Zach Brown delivered some measure of delayed retribution for Gerald Henderson's elbow to the nose of Tyler Hansbrough, administering a fearsome helmet-to-helmet hit to Duke quarterback Sean Renfree.

The hit, moments after the quarterback released a 45-yard touchdown pass, left Renfree sprawled on the field for a few minutes and eventually knocked him out of the game with numbness and swelling in his throwing hand.

I am more than accustomed to a combination of bias and/or Duke hate in the local press, but this "observation" seemed a bit outside the norm.

Is this so-called journalist equating a bloody nose to a possible concussion?? :mad:

The author is Luke DeCock of the N&O.

k

Well, it's certainly inappropriate. It's also kind of strange and out of place, considering how that the reference is pretty dated and from an entirely separate sport. It's especially weird given that he even mentions the year and sport differences.

But, I guess you have to play to your audience. And his audience is predominantly UNC fans.

At least (and this is only sort of an "at least") he didn't reference the Henderson incident as a punch.

[captmojo]

How dare he infer that a unc player would stoop to such an evil act. :rolleyes:

[Bob Green]

The author is Luke DeCock of the N&O.

k

I sent Mr. DeCock an email and communicated my displeasure with his glorification of the helmet-to-helmet blow.

luke.decock@newsobserver.com

[Acymetric]

I sent Mr. DeCock an email and communicated my displeasure with his glorification of the helmet-to-helmet blow.

luke.decock@newsobserver.com

Should have CC'd the editor...I'm sure DeCock doesn't care in the slightest if he receives negative feedback.

Really wish the triangle had a decent paper.

[moonpie23]

Really wish the triangle had a decent paper.

that ship has sailed my friend......

[Newton_14]

The following appeared in the Sunday edition of the News & Observer as part of a report on the Duke-unc football game:

Five years later and in a different sport, North Carolina linebacker Zach Brown delivered some measure of delayed retribution for Gerald Henderson's elbow to the nose of Tyler Hansbrough, administering a fearsome helmet-to-helmet hit to Duke quarterback Sean Renfree.

The hit, moments after the quarterback released a 45-yard touchdown pass, left Renfree sprawled on the field for a few minutes and eventually knocked him out of the game with numbness and swelling in his throwing hand.

I am more than accustomed to a combination of bias and/or Duke hate in the local press, but this "observation" seemed a bit outside the norm.

Is this so-called journalist equating a bloody nose to a possible concussion?? :mad:

The author is Luke DeCock of the N&O.

k

That's incredible. And are we really supposed to believe that Brown got up from the hit thinking "Yeah man, tell Henderson that was for my man Tyler"? What an ignorant statement to put in a newspaper article. I suppose Matt Daniels should have laid out one of the UNC receivers as payback for Larry Brown hitting Heyman back in the day...

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I think his comment deserves a 15 yard misconduct penalty, and probably a game misconduct ejection penalty as well. He knows better than that.

[hudlow]

I guess he doesn't realize that Hansbrough actually fouled Hendo with his nose.

[ChillinDuke]

The whole comparison is ridiculous.

Not to mention the supposed retribution was against a far inferior (I guess it shows progress that I didn't write "irrelevant" here) competition.

Pick on someone your own size...and sport.

- Chillin

[Verga3]

Unfortunately, pretty typical drivel from the Noise & Disturber. Just laughed out loud at how predictable...

[stillcrazie]

DeCock answered my email by saying that it was a tongue-in-cheek statement about the nature of the rivalry.

[mkline09]

DeCock answered my email by saying that it was a tongue-in-cheek statement about the nature of the rivalry.

Or nose-and-elbow statement. Anyway it was kind of an oddly placed and not very timely statement about the nature of the rivalry. Grasping at straws for something. At least pick something from the actual sport being played.

[DukieInKansas]

I guess he doesn't realize that Hansbrough actually fouled Hendo with his nose.

I thought Daniel Ewing got the technical. Did I have that wrong?

[cascadedevil]

I can understand those who will react with anger to Luke DeCock's ridiculous statement about a malicious hit that could endanger a young man's future. However, for those of us who have long tortured ourselves with reading Mr. DeCock's misguided attempts at wit and insight, it is just further evidence he will never evolve beyond a mediocre hockey writer who does not understand the history, traditions, sportsmanship or even the rules of other sports. It is only a matter of time before Mr. DeCock is plying his trade exclusively online, typing sophomoric and non-sensical drivel while remembering the distant past when he was referred to as a journalist. Instead of getting angry, I plan on focusing on hoping Sean Renfree fully recovers to seek his own retribution in next year's game.

[devildeac]

DeCock answered my email by saying that it was a tongue-in-cheek statement about the nature of the rivalry.


Or nose-and-elbow statement. Anyway it was kind of an oddly placed and not very timely statement about the nature of the rivalry. Grasping at straws for something. At least pick something from the actual sport being played.

Maybe this misguided miscreant needs to read about what the NFL thinks about this kind of malicious play:

http://newyork.sbnation.com/2010/10/19/1761129/nfl-rule-changes-helmet-to-helmet-hits-will-lead-to-suspensions

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5702673

[-bdbd]

I too responded to Mr. Decock, and will share what I get back. Pretty pathetic really - speaking of the (flagged) late hit and injury as (apparently fair/reasonable) retribution for an incident 5 years earlier, in a different sport, by two kids who were barely into High School at the time. Geez.

He didn't even say that the (late/ugly) hit was illegal and drew a flag.

I am based in northern VA, but was passing through Charlotte Sat. night-Sun morning and got a real startling taste of what you North Carolina resident Duke fans must deal with every day. In the Charlotte News and Observer Sunday print version, there were all of TWO articles on the Duke-UNC FB game. One was a reprint of the Decock opinion gem. The other, beginning on the front of the Sports section was headlined, "UNC THRASHES DUKE." Nevermind that the game had a 2 point spread with 17 minutes to go. Nevermind that it ended within a two score margin. And in the story, only slightly cleaned up later in the online version - http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/11/26/2807229/unc-turns-back-rival-duke.html - reads like a Renner love letter, barely even mentioning any efforts by any Duke players (solely Boone in a couple of sentences). Nary a mention of the late hit/personal foul, helmet-helmet blow that led to Boone's entry in the game. Remember this was the only article they had describing the game, other than Decock's opinion piece on "the glorious, spirited rivalry." Good grief.

You folks who deal with this trash daily have my undying empathy. :rolleyes:


P.S. I almost forgot the best part --- While the "UNC Thrashes Duke" headline, for FB game between 2 teams totalling 9 wins coming in, received front-of-the-Sports-Section placement, the story about their beloved #1 UNC MBB loss to UNLV received very :rolleyes:prominent coverage and placement..... with one short story under a drab "UNLV Wins Vegas Tournament" (roughly) headline somewhere around page 10 of the Sports Section. Really.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

If there is significant anger this morning following Saturday's game, it might be well directed toward Quinton Coples, heralded as an outstanding player, but the one who delivered the helmet to helmet tackle.

If I remember correctly, a few plays earlier, he also tackled Sean by yanking Sean down by the back of his helmet, also very dangerous because of the quick jerk delivered to the back of Sean's neck. There was no flag on that play.

Multiple questionable tackles by the same player raises the question of intent and motive of the player who's responsible. Coples is a very good player. He shouldn't have to resort to such nasty play to win a game.:mad:

[Bob Green]

If there is significant anger this morning following Saturday's game, it might be well directed toward Quinton Coples, heralded as an outstanding player, but the one who delivered the helmet to helmet tackle.

DitBD, Quinton Coples isn't the guilty party for the helmet-to-helmet hit on Renfree. That hit was delivered by Zach Brown.

[elvis14]

Really wish the triangle had a decent paper.

I generally call it the "News and TarHeel" because it's so biased. If you are a UNC fan and a republican, you'll love the local paper!

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

DitBD, Quinton Coples isn't the guilty party for the helmet-to-helmet hit on Renfree. That hit was delivered by Zach Brown.
You're right, Bob! I was carried away with the injustice of it all! Coples was the one who tackled by pulling Sean down by the back of the helmet, wasn't he or was it someone else?

[devildeac]

You're right, Bob! I was carried away with the injustice of it all! Coples was the one who tackled by pulling Sean down by the back of the helmet, wasn't he or was it someone else?

I remember 2 "horse collar" tackles during the game. One received a flag and the other was ignored. Although the first could have been a face mask because I am pretty sure I know to which one you are referring that was actually flagged. I think it was OPK who referenced something he read about heated rivalries and penalties, specifically personal fouls. Duke-unc was #4 or 5 and the cheaters had been called for 69% of those personal fouls. My response was, "only 69%?" I don't recall which thread it was in or if he provided a link but hey, it was OPK and who's to argue with him ;>)).

[OldPhiKap]

I remember 2 "horse collar" tackles during the game. One received a flag and the other was ignored. Although the first could have been a face mask because I am pretty sure I know to which one you are referring that was actually flagged. I think it was OPK who referenced something he read about heated rivalries and penalties, specifically personal fouls. Duke-unc was #4 or 5 and the cheaters had been called for 69% of those personal fouls. My response was, "only 69%?" I don't recall which thread it was in or if he provided a link but hey, it was OPK and who's to argue with him ;>)).

You would be surprised.

And, I must admit, I found the article and I was wrong. It was the SECOND dirtiest, not 4th or 5th. I did remember the percentage correctly though:

http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576639093283303646.html?m od=ITP_personaljournal_3&mg=reno-secaucus-wsj


Carolina also made the list at #9 with its NC State rivalry as well. They have the "honor" of being the only team that made the list twice.

But hey: "It's the Carolina Way"

[Matches]

I guess he doesn't realize that Hansbrough actually fouled Hendo with his nose.

My favorite part of the whole exchange was when Hanstravel had to be "held back" by a guy half his size.

[killerleft]

The whole comparison is ridiculous.

Not to mention the supposed retribution was against a far inferior (I guess it shows progress that I didn't write "irrelevant" here) competition.

Pick on someone your own size...and sport.

- Chillin

Perhaps that IS progress for YOU. I'm sure the Duke football team took it as the insult it was. Why don't we let our enemies take the potshots? What was the point of your post? I support Duke Football and am not amused at all.

[Indoor66]

I remember 2 "horse collar" tackles during the game. One received a flag and the other was ignored. Although the first could have been a face mask because I am pretty sure I know to which one you are referring that was actually flagged. I think it was OPK who referenced something he read about heated rivalries and penalties, specifically personal fouls. Duke-unc was #4 or 5 and the cheaters had been called for 69% of those personal fouls. My response was, "only 69%?" I don't recall which thread it was in or if he provided a link but hey, it was OPK and who's to argue with him ;>)).

I saw the "horse collar" tackle that was not called on TV. The replay clearly showed that the no call was correct. The defense had hold of the jersey between the neck and the pads and was, IMO, clearly a legal play. It just looked terrible.

[SmartDevil]

A little off topic but related to the general topic of broadcast press bias against Duke.

I found the broadcast tv coverage of the Duke-Heels game to be stomach turning due to the frequent snarky or derisive comments the "broadcasters" aimed in Duke's direction.

But this is nothing new. And it applies equally to basketball and football coverage though obviously the barbs and baiting hurled at Duke are different for each of those two sports.

I do find it much more characteristic of the coverage by ESPN and the regional "networks" when Duke appears on them. I can't recall the problem being nearly so bad when Duke has appeared on one of the major broadcast networks.

[-bdbd]

I had promised last night to share any response from Luke DeCock regarding my letter complaining about his piece on "dalayed retribution." In my complaint I questioned the appropriateness of glorifying what could reasonably be described as a dangerous or even dirty play, and making light of a potentially serious injury. I also asked why he failed to mention that it was an illegal hit which was actually flagged. He did respond and in a resonable tone stated the following (in its entirity):


Most people saw that in the spirit in which it was intended, a
tongue-in-cheek statement about emotional flashpoints in the
Duke-Carolina rivalry.

Certainly, there was no glorification or approval of the hit on
Renfree -- which was described as helmet-to-helmet, an inherently
negative description -- any more than there was glorification or
approval of Henderson's elbow.

Their only literal connection was that they were careless plays that
had the potential to cause serious injury. Clearly, I was not
suggesting that Zach Brown was ACTUALLY seeking retribution.

Thanks for the note,

-- Luke

I did respond, constructively, pointing out that the tone clearly made light of the seriousness/danger of such a hit. I also pointed out the predisposed fanbase sensitivity, given the long-term tone of media coverage in the state. Give him credit for responding positively.

[captmojo]

I give him the credit you mentioned,

I also give credit to the sportsmanship that writers on IC have displayed, by trying to say that Renfree dropped his head into the oncoming eminent hit in order to draw a flag.

I could very well find myself 'On Holiday' for sharing my true feelings about that. :mad:

[-bdbd]

Last one... He responded again to my follow-up email. Recall that I'd responded and pointed out that his piece made light of a dangerous play, in effect glorifying or at least legitimizing it. I also made note of the general non-UNC fanbases perception is that the NC media is generally UNC-leaning. Not surprisingly he disagreed on both points. Take the points for what they're worth:


I guess where I differ is that, as I noted earlier, I wasn't
"glorifying" Brown's hit any more than I was "glorifying" Henderson's
elbow -- only drawing a comparison between the two as touchpoints in
the rivalry. We are not in the business of ignoring what happens on
the field, good or bad, and mentioning Brown's hit hardly qualifies as
glorification or endorsement.

As for "perceived bias," I'll let you guess how many current members
of the N&O sports staff went to UNC. Here's a hint: there are more
from NC State, which makes the most claims of "bias" on the part of
the N&O. (The answer, by the way, is none, to my knowledge.)

[captmojo]

I also made note of the general non-UNC fanbases perception is that the NC media is generally UNC-leaning. Not surprisingly he disagreed on both points. Take the points for what they're worth:




As for "perceived bias," I'll let you guess how many current members
of the N&O sports staff went to UNC. Here's a hint: there are more
from NC State, which makes the most claims of "bias" on the part of
the N&O. (The answer, by the way, is none, to my knowledge.)

Of course, it should be accepted, to a certain extent, that they have to play-up to their largest readership.

[mike88]

I had promised last night to share any response from Luke DeCock regarding my letter complaining about his piece on "dalayed retribution." In my complaint I questioned the appropriateness of glorifying what could reasonably be described as a dangerous or even dirty play, and making light of a potentially serious injury. I also asked why he failed to mention that it was an illegal hit which was actually flagged. He did respond and in a resonable tone stated the following (in its entirity):


Most people saw that in the spirit in which it was intended, a
tongue-in-cheek statement about emotional flashpoints in the
Duke-Carolina rivalry.

Certainly, there was no glorification or approval of the hit on
Renfree -- which was described as helmet-to-helmet, an inherently
negative description -- any more than there was glorification or
approval of Henderson's elbow.

Their only literal connection was that they were careless plays that
had the potential to cause serious injury. Clearly, I was not
suggesting that Zach Brown was ACTUALLY seeking retribution.

Thanks for the note,

-- Luke

I did respond, constructively, pointing out that the tone clearly made light of the seriousness/danger of such a hit. I also pointed out the predisposed fanbase sensitivity, given the long-term tone of media coverage in the state. Give him credit for responding positively.

How does he know how "most people" interpreted his statement? I don't see how one could assume that it was meant "tongue in cheek" and I find the use of the term "fearsome" to be ambiguous in that situation. I would still call him out for glorifying an illegal and potentially dangerous play against a defenseless opponent. Whether you interpret Hansbrough's broken nose similarly seems beside the point to me.

[Kimist]

Last one... He responded again to my follow-up email. Recall that I'd responded and pointed out that his piece made light of a dangerous play, in effect glorifying or at least legitimizing it. I also made note of the general non-UNC fanbases perception is that the NC media is generally UNC-leaning. Not surprisingly he disagreed on both points. Take the points for what they're worth:


I guess where I differ is that, as I noted earlier, I wasn't
"glorifying" Brown's hit any more than I was "glorifying" Henderson's
elbow -- only drawing a comparison between the two as touchpoints in
the rivalry. We are not in the business of ignoring what happens on
the field, good or bad, and mentioning Brown's hit hardly qualifies as
glorification or endorsement.

As for "perceived bias," I'll let you guess how many current members
of the N&O sports staff went to UNC. Here's a hint: there are more
from NC State, which makes the most claims of "bias" on the part of
the N&O. (The answer, by the way, is none, to my knowledge.)

That dog won't quite hunt.

It's my understanding that the Charlotte Observer and the Raleigh News & Observer are owned by the same operation. Their sports stories, including commentaries by various writers from Charlotte and Raleigh, frequently appear in both newspapers.

A Duke friend who lives in Charlotte tells me the pro-unc (not necessarily anti-Duke however) bias reported in the local newspaper is just a simple fact, known to all.

Perhaps some DBR readers from that area would care to comment further??

k

[hudlow]

That dog won't quite hunt.

It's my understanding that the Charlotte Observer and the Raleigh News & Observer are owned by the same operation. Their sports stories, including commentaries by various writers from Charlotte and Raleigh, frequently appear in both newspapers.

A Duke friend who lives in Charlotte tells me the pro-unc (not necessarily anti-Duke however) bias reported in the local newspaper is just a simple fact, known to all.

Perhaps some DBR readers from that area would care to comment further??

k

Having grown up in the area and The Charlotte Observer being the only daily newspaper available for most of my life, I can say your Duke friend from Charlotte is absolutely correct. I'd like to add that although they are not really anti-Duke they are very selective about printing Duke articles when Duke accomplishments overshadows UNC - to the point of being obviously biased.

Go Duke!

hud