WBB: Duke 69 North Carolina 63

[throatybeard]

Oh Lord. 15D.

[wandalee]

Gamoe on now on ESPN2. Not an early blow-out like the game Durham, but we're playing well so far.

[wandalee]

Throatybeard, we started the same thread at the same time,

[wandalee]

Sylvia pulled out her best sparkly jacket for this one!

[Duvall]

If that play isn't called a Flagrant II, Duke needs to call Jim Delany about joining the Big Ten.

[Ggallagher]

Not a real great showing by the tarhole fans. I can hear the Duke fans cheering better than the unc fans. Lots of nice seats available to.

[throatybeard]

At 5:00 left, they showed a graphic--40 (!) total turnovers. And there have been more.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Nice win by the Women. Stall ball almost got them, but they hung on. :cool:

[Duvall]

At 5:00 left, they showed a graphic--40 (!) total turnovers. And there have been more.

UNC got the game and the loose whistle they wanted. Needed, really. Wasn't enough.

I just hope the final margin wasn't small enough to allow UNC to steal a bid from that deserves to be in the Division I Championship.

[throatybeard]

Women sweep Carolina. Defense. Not that gruesome display of foul shooting. Vernerey looked like she was trying to pound the front of the rim with such violence I thought she was deliberately trying to create an offensive rebound.

When was the last time both the guys and the women swept UNC? It's possible this year. Guys did it in 2010, 2004, 2002, 2000 and 1999. Women did it in 2002 and 1999, but I think not in 2000. Can't remember how the women did in 2010 and 2004.

[Duvall]

Women sweep Carolina. Defense. Not that gruesome display of foul shooting. Vernerey looked like she was trying to pound the front of the rim with such violence I thought she was deliberately trying to create an offensive rebound.

When was the last time both the guys and the women swept UNC? It's possible this year. Guys did it in 2010, 2004, 2002, 2000 and 1999. Women did it in 2002 and 1999, but I think not in 2000. Can't remember how the women did in 2010 and 2004.

No sweep in 2010. I *think* the Duke women Triple Crowned UNC in 2004, but I would have to check.

[OZ]

A great tough win for our women. Three difficult - and important - games in a week. The heels in chapel hill after a quick turn around, while playing only (basically) seven players.

Another ACC regular season title and a heel sweep. Now get some needed rest for the tournaments!

[Wander]

When was the last time both the guys and the women swept UNC? It's possible this year. Guys did it in 2010, 2004, 2002, 2000 and 1999. Women did it in 2002 and 1999, but I think not in 2000. Can't remember how the women did in 2010 and 2004.

Don't forget 2007, when the women went undefeated in the entire regular season (Harding's missed free throws against Rutgers are one of the most "what could have been" moments in all of Duke sports for me).

[roywhite]

At 5:00 left, they showed a graphic--40 (!) total turnovers. And there have been more.

Congrats to the Duke team and coaches on a terrific season so far.

I watched parts of this game, and it really was not good entertainment.
Too many turnovers, constant whistles for fouls, and bad shooting.
I've seen other performances by Duke that have been far better, but this was not pretty today.

[-bdbd]

Great win by the women. Don't forget that they could have easily mailed this one in since they'd sewn up the #1 seed in the ACCT on Friday. Great first half, and enough composure to hang on in the second. Pretty frustrating play down the last 10 minutes, as they seemingly played scared, or at least "not to lose." Thank goodness the defense stuck around, as our offensive rhythm was just GONE the last 10 min. (Or was the NC offense just that bad??)

Too many unforced turnovers, loose balls seemed to largely go NC's way in the last ten, and boy did NC get some pretty weak calls their way... (Is it just me or is there something psychological among refs that they want to give all of the 50/50 calls to the team that is currently behind? I think I read something last year about that, where statistically, in D1, a great majority of the "could go either way" calls went to the trailing team.)

Does NC hang on to the #5 seed in the ACCT still?

Can't wait to see the ladies make some serious noise in the NCAAT!! This squad is VERY Final-Four-capable. Win the ACCT and a NCAAT #1 seed is certainly possible, and worst case they're a number 2.

Congratulations ladies!!!!

-BD "gotta practice those FT's a lot more this week" BD

[throatybeard]

#5, ugh. Sweep or no, I don't want to play the fighting Hatchells again.

[B-well]

That foul on Haley resulted in an injury that was exactly the reason "the elbow above the shoulders" rule was put into effect.

How the officials could not call that a flagrant foul is beyond comprehension.

But - oh well, it's Carmichael.

[Indoor66]

That foul on Haley resulted in an injury that was exactly the reason "the elbow above the shoulders" rule was put into effect.

How the officials could not call that a flagrant foul is beyond comprehension.

But - oh well, it's Carmichael.

With all the blood I thought that Hendo had suited up for the ugly blue ladies.

[chrishoke]

How sweet it is. Haley had 15 stitches, and came back and played like a warrior. Congrats team on the sweep and championship.

[Jim3k]

Ugly photo (not for the faint of heart) (http://www.chron.com/sports/article/No-7-Duke-women-beat-rival-North-Carolina-69-63-3362559.php). Houston Chron

Is it possible the refs got this not-flagrant-foul right? Or should they be returned to their day jobs?

[Duvall]

Ugly photo (not for the faint of heart) (http://www.chron.com/sports/article/No-7-Duke-women-beat-rival-North-Carolina-69-63-3362559.php). Houston Chron

Is it possible the refs got this not-flagrant-foul right? Or should they be returned to their day jobs?

Let's be clear - the play wasn't called any kind of foul at all.

[Jim3k]

Let's be clear - the play wasn't called any kind of foul at all.

I didn't see the game, only the photo, so thanks for the clarification. I had seen your post (No. 5, in this thread) and inferred from it that at least a common foul had been called.

Your observation makes it clear that the reffing was worse than I thought--not one of the three refs saw this contact. Wow! And it makes my case about whether they should be returned to their day jobs even stronger.

Duke should be outraged and taking this up with the conference so it can deal with the women's referee bureau. And the conference should also be reviewing the film to see if a player suspension is warranted.

[Duvall]

#5, ugh. Sweep or no, I don't want to play the fighting Hatchells again.

Well, UNC has to win two games for that to matter. And if they do, well, then Duke could have a chance to play a weaker opponent than Georgia Tech.

[Devilsfan]

Speaking of the fighting hatchells, the assistant coach, a little less manly, seams to be be mimicking the head coach and complaining to the refs about everything she (hatchell) doesn't approve of. Weird fellow, IMO.

[Stray Gator]

I didn't see the game, only the photo, so thanks for the clarification. I had seen your post (No. 5, in this thread) and inferred from it that at least a common foul had been called.

Your observation makes it clear that the reffing was worse than I thought--not one of the three refs saw this contact. Wow! And it makes my case about whether they should be returned to their day jobs even stronger.

Duke should be outraged and taking this up with the conference so it can deal with the women's referee bureau. And the conference should also be reviewing the film to see if a player suspension is warranted.

After Peters went down and was lying on the floor with blood on her face, and UNC took the ball down to their offensive end and scored against a Duke defense that was one player short, the three officials stopped play, came over to the scorer's table, and reviewed the replay--which unquestionably showed Shegog swinging her elbows wildly side-to-side above shoulder level to protect possession of the ball and connecting with Peters in the face. Then they conferred for a minute and ruled that it was not a foul, but "just a basketball play."

[Duvall]

Duke should be outraged and taking this up with the conference so it can deal with the women's referee bureau. And the conference should also be reviewing the film to see if a player suspension is warranted.

Not worth the time. If the ACC were going to do anything about Hatchell's program, it would have done so by now.

[devildeac]

I didn't see the game, only the photo, so thanks for the clarification. I had seen your post (No. 5, in this thread) and inferred from it that at least a common foul had been called.

Your observation makes it clear that the reffing was worse than I thought--not one of the three refs saw this contact. Wow! And it makes my case about whether they should be returned to their day jobs even stronger.

Duke should be outraged and taking this up with the conference so it can deal with the women's referee bureau. And the conference should also be reviewing the film to see if a player suspension is warranted.


Not worth the time. If the ACC were going to do anything about Hatchell's program, it would have done so by now.

Gerald Henderson has been notified and informed he will be sitting out the first game of the acc tourney in his street clothes while NOT on the Duke bench for this non-flagrant/non-foul:rolleyes::mad:.

[buddy]

The commissioner is a UNC grad, attends NCAA disciplinary hearings involving UNC (but no other school), and all the sportswriters in the state went to UNC. I surprised that Haley doesn't get suspended for attempting to bite Shegog's elbow! Just another non-contact 21 stitch injury. Really, the referees should have to explain why contact with an elbow above the shoulder resulting in 21 stitches does NOT constitute a foui.

[Jim3k]

The gallows humor and mentioning the commissioner's possible conflict of interest is fine for a message board. What happened on the court is not fine. A player, by all accounts suffered a bloody mouth injury due to elbow throwing that to most observers seemed in violation of the elbow/flagrant foul rule. Why is this something that should not be investigated? Certainly Shegogg shouldn't be permitted to think it was OK to do what she did and is therefore free to do it again...and again. If the referees are obligated to provide a fair contest, how is it fair for one team to punch out an opposing player by committing a rule violation? That's not providing a fair contest.

And so what if the Commissioner is an alum of the offending team? Make him do his job. In large part this type of issue is an ordinary administrative matter and shouldn't offend any commissioner, no matter who the guilty team may be. These incidents come up every year and with every team. Special protection or favoritism for the commissioner's alma mater is unlikely. It will probably be reviewed by a staff member first anyway, and that person is likely to give the commissioner an unbiased assessment. If he doesn't act fairly, at least the ADs and the presidents will know about it and can act accordingly. Moreover, both the school and the commissioner can force the refs to focus on the issue for the future by taking the matter to the referee supervisor.

I just don't see any downside to pursuing this incident through the existing channels which the conference provides for the purpose. In fact, the downside comes from failing to stand up for one's own student. What do you think the players will think when they learn their own AD won't bother to try to protect one of their teammates, who was an innocent victim?

[Kedsy]

I just don't see any downside to pursuing this incident through the existing channels which the conference provides for the purpose. In fact, the downside comes from failing to stand up for one's own student. What do you think the players will think when they learn their own AD won't bother to try to protect one of their teammates, who was an innocent victim?

I was appalled when I saw the elbow and miffed at the lack of a call, but to answer your question, the downside might be there is no specified procedure for this sort of investigation. To me, it was clear Shegog didn't intend to hurt Haley. If the rule is any above-the-shoulder contact from an elbow is a flagrant foul, it clearly should have been called. (And I don't know if that's the rule, but I thought that's what they said after Miles got called for it several games ago.) However, missed calls don't usually get investigated, and when they do, it generally has ramifications for the referee rather than the violating player. So, unless there's some procedure to penalize a player for a non-intentional, uncalled foul involving errant elbows (and I doubt there is), then to me it wouldn't make sense to pursue this incident at all.

[throatybeard]

Not worth the time. If the ACC were going to do anything about Hatchell's program, it would have done so by now.

Jessica Gaspar just flashed before my eyes.

[Jim3k]

I was appalled when I saw the elbow and miffed at the lack of a call, but to answer your question, the downside might be there is no specified procedure for this sort of investigation. To me, it was clear Shegog didn't intend to hurt Haley. If the rule is any above-the-shoulder contact from an elbow is a flagrant foul, it clearly should have been called. (And I don't know if that's the rule, but I thought that's what they said after Miles got called for it several games ago.) However, missed calls don't usually get investigated, and when they do, it generally has ramifications for the referee rather than the violating player. So, unless there's some procedure to penalize a player for a non-intentional, uncalled foul involving errant elbows (and I doubt there is), then to me it wouldn't make sense to pursue this incident at all.

Clearly the channels for review are there and have been regularly invoked invoked ever since the 1961 Heyman-Brown affair. It is a primary goal of the league to avoid serious injuries. Restraining dirty and reckless play is paramount to that purpose.

These calls for investigations are usually supported by evidence provided by the school making the complaint--here, there must be video shot from several angles--not just the TV, but courtside shots by Duke-connected people and perhaps news shots as well as the official game film. If these support the observers' reports that Shegog's elbows were thrown illegally, then there are several directions the conference can go. Since the refs did not make a call, the question is why not? The refs' reports and video should provide an easy answer. Perhaps the refs were out of position or looking the wrong way for some reason. The same evidence will show what Shegog actually did, and may show why the refs reached their conclusion that the injury was due to an ordinary basketball matter--but--it also might show that they saw an illegality and did nothing about it. The ref supervisor can get that sort of thing fixed. Finally, it can be determined whether Shegog's conduct merits any level of post-game discipline, even if it's only a gentle reminder to adhere to the swinging elbow rule.

Maybe after all is said and done, the league concludes the complaint(s) are meritless. If fair-minded, even a review which ultimately supports the referees accomplishes a clearing of the air. Invoking the process still sends a message that consequences are always possible. If that has a deterrent effect which prevents a future injury, that is a positive outcome.

Being proactive starts a remedial and/or prophylactic process. Doing nothing constitutes lack of leadership and will lead to worse injuries.

[bird]

My highly speculative lip reading of the refs when they reviewed the hit on Peters was the male ref saying "that's a one" and the female ref saying "we didn't call it." I am pretty sure about the "that's a one." My inference was that the refs decided that they could not assess a flagrant one because they had not called any foul on the play and play continued.

I was pretty dang impressed when Peters returned in the game and she stuck her head into a physical play right away.

[CameronBornAndBred]

#5, ugh. Sweep or no, I don't want to play the fighting Hatchells again.
I do, I'd much rather face them than Brenda's Twerps or Miami again.

[dukeman28428]

We were at the game yesterday and the elbow by Shegog looked flagrant to me.
Have to admire Peters coming back and playing after a tough injury like that.
Duke is maturing as a team and so proud to support them. Nice to get a win in Chapel Hill for seniors.
GO DUKE

[buddy]

My comment about the commissioner being a heel was sarcastic, of course. There is precedent for reviewing a play after the game, even if no foul was called. The NCAA suspended Phil Sellers for pounding Laettner's head into the floor, a play on which no foul was called. On the other hand, Laettner was not suspended for the "stomp" precisely because he was penalized during the game. I too thought that the new rule was designed to eliminate elbow contact above the shoulders, and that intent was not the issue. That certainly was the issue when Miles was called for Tanner Smith's flop. I honestly do not remember if Henderson was charged with a foul for the Hansbrough incident, but the league sure did come down on him like a ton of bricks later. I have trouble understanding how any play that results in 21 stitches to an opposing player is a "basketball play". Especially after Miles' love tap, I would like for Duke to pursue this just to get clarification. But I think we know the answer--bloody a Carolina star and you get publicly vilified and a two game suspension. Bloody a Duke star and it is "play on". But Duke still gets all the calls.

That said--Haley proved once again that she is a warrior. We are blessed to have two more years (and this year's tournaments) to watch her. Enjoy!

[devildeac]

My comment about the commissioner being a tarhole was sarcastic, of course. There is precedent for reviewing a play after the game, even if no foul was called. The NCAA suspended Phil Sellers for pounding Laettner's head into the floor, a play on which no foul was called. On the other hand, Laettner was not suspended for the "stomp" precisely because he was penalized during the game. I too thought that the new rule was designed to eliminate elbow contact above the shoulders, and that intent was not the issue. That certainly was the issue when Miles was called for Tanner Smith's flop. I honestly do not remember if Henderson was charged with a foul for the Hansbrough incident, but the league sure did come down on him like a ton of bricks later. I have trouble understanding how any play that results in 21 stitches to an opposing player is a "basketball play". Especially after Miles' love tap, I would like for Duke to pursue this just to get clarification. But I think we know the answer--bloody a Carolina star and you get publicly vilified and a two game suspension. Bloody a Duke star and it is "play on". But Duke still gets all the calls.

That said--Haley proved once again that she is a warrior. We are blessed to have two more years (and this year's tournaments) to watch her. Enjoy!

Some points of clarification (from memory):

Henderson was charged with a flagrant foul on the play. And, upon further review (take a guess who the refs were in THAT game), it was then deemed "fighting" so he got his 1 (not 2) game suspension. What really steamed K was that Gerald had so sit behind the bench and not with the team despite the fact earlier that year (or was it the prior year?), Chris Paul was allowed to sit on the WFU bench during his 1 game suspension for his testicular assault.

I'm with Jim3K on this one. Have the Duke athletic office send a "formal" complaint (in support of our players/Peters) to the acc office and see what answer they get. I'd bet a small sum of OPK's (or Ozzie's) money that there is no further action and Gog/Magog/Shegog is not found guilty of anything, nor are the officials. Just what I would expect. Unless the situation was reversed as buddy posted above.

[jimsumner]

The play happened a long way from where I was sitting and I didn't record the game. But several people with a Duke affiliation who were pretty close to the play, told me it was a clean play, with no apparent intent to injure. Haley said it was "just basketball." Wrong place, wrong time.

I've watched Shegog play a lot over the years. She's never seemed like a dirty player to me and I know she went out of her way after the game to talk to Peters and make sure they were okay.

The player with 16 stitches in her mouth seems inclined to let it go and move forward. I would follow her lead.

[rasputin]

The play happened a long way from where I was sitting and I didn't record the game. But several people with a Duke affiliation who were pretty close to the play, told me it was a clean play, with no apparent intent to injure. Haley said it was "just basketball." Wrong place, wrong time.

I've watched Shegog play a lot over the years. She's never seemed like a dirty player to me and I know she went out of her way after the game to talk to Peters and make sure they were okay.

The player with 16 stitches in her mouth seems inclined to let it go and move forward. I would follow her lead.

I thought the issue of intent had been taken out of the rule; if you elbow somebody in the head, it is a flagrant one, isn't it?

[-jk]

From the current NCAA rulebook, here are some rules regarding elbows:


p 12, Major Officiating Concerns for Women: Incidental Elbow Contact
Officials are reminded that there can be incidental contact with the elbow above or below the shoulders and that not all elbow contact with the elbow is a foul regardless of where the elbow makes contact. Some incidental contact is being penalized improperly.

Rule 4-29 Art. 2.c. Flagrant One Personal Foul
6. Illegal contact with an elbow that occurs above the shoulders of an opponent when the elbows are not swung excessively per 4-36.7.a.

Rule 4-36 Art. 6. It shall be illegal to extend one’s elbow(s) and make contact when one’s:
a. Hands are on one’s hips;
b. Hands are held near one’s chest; or
c. Arms are held approximately horizontal to the playing court when not holding the ball.
Note: These illegal positions are most commonly used when rebounding, screening or in the various aspects of post play.

Art. 7. The following shall be considered excessive swinging:
a. When arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung about while using the shoulders as pivots, and the speed of the extended arm(s) and elbow(s) exceeds that of the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot; or
b. When the speed and vigor with which the arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung is such that injury could result if another player were contacted.


Rule 9-13. Elbow(s)
Art. 1. A player shall not excessively swing his or her arm(s) or elbow(s), even without contacting an opponent.
Art. 2. A player may extend arm(s) or elbow(s) to hold the ball under the chin or against the body.
Art. 3. Action of arm(s) and elbow(s) resulting from total body movement as in pivoting or movement of the ball incidental to feinting with it, releasing it, or moving it to prevent a held ball or loss of control shall not be considered excessive.

Rule 10-1 Art. 13 Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:
a. Results from total body movement is a common or flagrant 1 personal foul
b. Is excessive per Rule 4-36.7 is a flagrant 2 foul.
c. Occurs above the shoulders of an opponent is a flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 personal foul.
d. Occurs below the shoulders of an opponent is a common, flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 personal foul.

So, as I see it, there are two possible elbow-contact scenarios here: either "incidental contact" or where "the speed and vigor with which the arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung is such that injury could result if another player were contacted".

IANAR of course, but it looked like there was no swinging, much less with speed and vigor - just bringing the ball up to pass, and Haley was in a bad spot while recovering on D. Of course, I think Haley was in that bad spot because Shegog pushed her on the rebound, followed by Haley holding Shegog's wrist on the chase, but those weren't called, either. Had either foul been called, the play would have stopped before the injury. Ugly play all the way 'round, but I think the refs got the elbow part right anyway. Either way, Haley's tough as nails.

And the play was nothing like G's forearm to Hans (other than the blood); that one involved G deliberately launching himself from several feet away - deemed wrecklessly by the refs. Very different scenario.

-jk

[Lid]

I thought the issue of intent had been taken out of the rule; if you elbow somebody in the head, it is a flagrant one, isn't it?
This is what I thought, also, with the new rule changes that were supposed to remove that judgment call. Is there still a reference to intent somewhere in the rules for men or women?


Rule 4-29 Art. 2.c. Flagrant One Personal Foul
6. Illegal contact with an elbow that occurs above the shoulders of an opponent when the elbows are not swung excessively per 4-36.7.a.

This makes it sound as if it was a flagrant 1 (vs. 2) because the elbows were not swung excessively. Article 6 discusses illegal contact without the ball, but not illegal contact with the ball. To me, that seems to be the key question.

In any case, I was so impressed with Tough-as-Nails Peters yesterday. Coming back in and staying aggressive... that's the stuff you dream of as a fan. Great win yesterday, and I'm pumped for the tournament! Winning these last two games with such a short bench is excellent preparation for what's ahead.

[Duvall]

#5, ugh. Sweep or no, I don't want to play the fighting Hatchells again.

Moot now.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Moot now.
Bummer, I was looking forward to a GTHC double header. Oh well, we have to win our game too. unc would have really helped themselves with a win today, instead they are on the outside of the bubble; it will be an interesting Selection Monday for them.

[msdukie]

Bummer, I was looking forward to a GTHC double header. Oh well, we have to win our game too. unc would have really helped themselves with a win today, instead they are on the outside of the bubble; it will be an interesting Selection Monday for them.

I was looking forward to Duke participating in the ACC Tournament...apparently we chose to sit out this year.