PDA

View Full Version : The Last Time It Got Really Rough



aheel4ever
03-06-2007, 09:52 AM
I read your guest column in which the author compares the Henderson/Hansbrough incident to a play in the 2004 game in Chapel Hill involving David Noel and Luol Deng. Although I was at that game, I had trouble remembering what had happened; I guess that's what 40+ years of watching these does to you. But, just a short time ago, I reviewed a You Tube clip of that play, via a thread on the Inside Carolina message board.

I almost laughed when I saw and remembered the play in question. I have always enjoyed this site, largely due of its relative objectivity, even with subjects involving UNC. However, by posting such nonsense as your guest columnist offers on this subject (e.g. "Noel slamming Deng to the floor", "Deng came close to suffering a catastrophic injury"), you lose a lot of credibility. To compare the two plays is laughable, at best.

To quote the revered Coach K, "I mean, come on." This column is beneath your fine site.

feldspar
03-06-2007, 09:56 AM
I too had forgotten about that play, so I watched the video.

Looked really benign to me.

thrilainvanila
03-06-2007, 10:09 AM
agreed, there was no intent to injure. it was a play on the ball. probably should have been called a foul, but definitely nothing worse than that.

throatybeard
03-06-2007, 10:11 AM
To quote the revered Coach K, "I mean, come on." This column is beneath your fine site.

I mean, it's like, 'come on'

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/45/Krazy_Kripples.jpg

Duke05
03-06-2007, 11:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQGYjHZQBAk

Definitely no intent, but I don't get the booing...

WhippleSchnopple
03-06-2007, 11:52 AM
I'm assuming that DBR will now take down the Arnie Schechter piece or at least post the link to the video, demonstrating that the guest columnist's memory was clouded, to say the least.

Or perhaps you guys are trying to deflect?

aheel4ever
03-06-2007, 12:42 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQGYjHZQBAk

Definitely no intent, but I don't get the booing...


My guess would be that, after seeing the replay on the video boards, the fans saw what they perceived to be a "flop". Duke has gained a bit of a reputation for that over the past couple of years, you may have noticed.

VaDukie
03-06-2007, 12:50 PM
There was certainly no malicious intent on Noel's part. Definitley just a part of the physical play of the game. Much like another play...

Methodistman
03-06-2007, 12:54 PM
"flop"? "Bit of a reputation for that"?
Oh that's right - I remember the time we had a scholarship football player on our team who really wasn't a good foul shooter, so when he got bumped he was too "injured" to shoot the free throws. Oh wait - that was Ronald Curry, and that was unc.

If you come over here, bring some semblence of having a clue.

crote
03-06-2007, 12:59 PM
There was certainly no malicious intent on Noel's part. Definitley just a part of the physical play of the game. Much like another play...

That's how I feel about it. Deng was injured semi-badly yet not permanently after Noel made an out of control, too strong play on the ball that should have been called a foul and nothing more.

Subsitute TH for Luol and GH for Noel and it's the exact same situation. The only distinction is the insane level of overreaction the latter incident received (from both TH and the media).

feldspar
03-06-2007, 01:00 PM
"flop"? "Bit of a reputation for that"?
Oh that's right - I remember the time we had a scholarship football player on our team who really wasn't a good foul shooter, so when he got bumped he was too "injured" to shoot the free throws. Oh wait - that was Ronald Curry, and that was unc.

If you come over here, bring some semblence of having a clue.

Easy, tiger.

Having a reputation for something does not necessarily make it true.

How about "Duke gets all the calls"? Is it true? Heck no. But we still have that rep.

aheel4ever
03-06-2007, 01:31 PM
"flop"? "Bit of a reputation for that"?
Oh that's right - I remember the time we had a scholarship football player on our team who really wasn't a good foul shooter, so when he got bumped he was too "injured" to shoot the free throws. Oh wait - that was Ronald Curry, and that was unc.

If you come over here, bring some semblence of having a clue.

Looks like I touched a nerve.

But, I do believe that it is accurate to say that Duke has developed such a reputation over the past few years, among the non-Duke partisans at least. I think it's a fair statement, and was offered as a response to the question about the booing.

I assure you, I have a clue, much more so than the guy who tried to equate the Noel/Deng play to the one on Sunday.

devilsadvocate85
03-06-2007, 01:39 PM
Looks like I touched a nerve.

But, I do believe that it is accurate to say that Duke has developed such a reputation over the past few years, among the non-Duke partisans at least. I think it's a fair statement, and was offered as a response to the question about the booing.

I assure you, I have a clue, much more so than the guy who tried to equate the Noel/Deng play to the one on Sunday.

If Hansbrough doesn't bleed and doesn't react like he wants to fight the entire Duke team, what happens? In my opinion, it's a flagrant foul and the game ends. I'm not blaming Hansbrough, but if he turns his head and Hendersons elbow lands on his shoulder, it's a hard foul, maybe flagrant and the game ends. My point......the blood, the reaction by Hansbrough and the crowd reaction lead to the officials acting the way they did.

WhippleSchnopple
03-06-2007, 01:47 PM
If Hansbrough doesn't bleed and doesn't react like he wants to fight the entire Duke team, what happens? In my opinion, it's a flagrant foul and the game ends. I'm not blaming Hansbrough, but if he turns his head and Hendersons elbow lands on his shoulder, it's a hard foul, maybe flagrant and the game ends. My point......the blood, the reaction by Hansbrough and the crowd reaction lead to the officials acting the way they did.

Well, the flexed and fully extended arm certainly didn't help the perception:
http://media.newsobserver.com/smedia/2007/03/06/04/885-reg-1565259-1001656.embedded.prod_affiliate.3.jpg

devilsadvocate85
03-06-2007, 01:54 PM
Well, the flexed and fully extended arm certainly didn't help the perception:
http://media.newsobserver.com/smedia/2007/03/06/04/885-reg-1565259-1001656.embedded.prod_affiliate.3.jpg

A still photo after the fact tells nothing as I've been told before! He swings at the ball with an open hand (clearly seen on the video tape), body and head are not facing toward Hansbrough. He has turned toward where the ball got deflected. If he was trying to punch, elbow or hit him on purpose, that's an amazing thing to do without looking. Especially since he had no way of knowing that if Johnson doesn't foul Hansbrough first, the only thing that would have been there was the ball! We've all seen intentional hits on players and the defender never follows the ball, they go straight for the player. It was a hard foul, with awful results, but any person with basketball knowledge (including most of the Carolina team and Roy Williams) has stated that it wasn't intentional. The point is that the aftermath is what got everyone going. If his forearm had hit Hansbrough on top of the head (which could likely have happened given slight adjustments in the play), there's no blood, Hendorson has a sore arm and there's nothing called but maybe a flagrant foul.

devilsadvocate85
03-06-2007, 01:56 PM
Well, the flexed and fully extended arm certainly didn't help the perception:
http://media.newsobserver.com/smedia/2007/03/06/04/885-reg-1565259-1001656.embedded.prod_affiliate.3.jpg

Look again carefully, his other arm and his legs are flexed too! What a strange sight in a player with a 36"+ vertical leap trying to block a dunk attempt by a 6-9, 260 pound player.

WhippleSchnopple
03-06-2007, 02:34 PM
"(including most of the Carolina team and Roy Williams) has stated that it wasn't intentional..."

Carolina's company line is pretty gracious, and it's undoubtedly not how some over there truly feel, but it serves the conference and rivalry far better than some of the things we've heard uttered so far.

As for Henderson, there's a whole lot of shuffling about the definition of intent going on. Not many rational people would say that he intended to drive his forearm into Hansbrough's nose. But not many rational people would say that he did not intend to create a violent collision, which ultimately resulted in lots of blood. Personally, I feel that there's no place in the sport for violence, and that what Henderson perpetrated was indeed violent. I have a hard time believing that anybody could reasonably refute that unless they felt they had something to protect.

MulletMan
03-06-2007, 02:45 PM
"(including most of the Carolina team and Roy Williams) has stated that it wasn't intentional..."

Carolina's company line is pretty gracious, and it's undoubtedly not how some over there truly feel, but it serves the conference and rivalry far better than some of the things we've heard uttered so far.

As for Henderson, there's a whole lot of shuffling about the definition of intent going on. Not many rational people would say that he intended to drive his forearm into Hansbrough's nose. But not many rational people would say that he did not intend to create a violent collision, which ultimately resulted in lots of blood. Personally, I feel that there's no place in the sport for violence, and that what Henderson perpetrated was indeed violent. I have a hard time believing that anybody could reasonably refute that unless they felt they had something to protect.

Wow. Way to bait. I mean, if I didn't know better, I'd assume that you were a Carolina fan posing as a Duke fan in order to provoke some kind of reaction.

I hope people don't take the bait.

devilsadvocate85
03-06-2007, 02:52 PM
"(including most of the Carolina team and Roy Williams) has stated that it wasn't intentional..."

Carolina's company line is pretty gracious, and it's undoubtedly not how some over there truly feel, but it serves the conference and rivalry far better than some of the things we've heard uttered so far.

As for Henderson, there's a whole lot of shuffling about the definition of intent going on. Not many rational people would say that he intended to drive his forearm into Hansbrough's nose. But not many rational people would say that he did not intend to create a violent collision, which ultimately resulted in lots of blood. Personally, I feel that there's no place in the sport for violence, and that what Henderson perpetrated was indeed violent. I have a hard time believing that anybody could reasonably refute that unless they felt they had something to protect.

Violent dunk attempt = violent block attempt (which happened first?)

aheel4ever
03-06-2007, 02:54 PM
"(including most of the Carolina team and Roy Williams) has stated that it wasn't intentional..."

Carolina's company line is pretty gracious, and it's undoubtedly not how some over there truly feel, but it serves the conference and rivalry far better than some of the things we've heard uttered so far.

As for Henderson, there's a whole lot of shuffling about the definition of intent going on. Not many rational people would say that he intended to drive his forearm into Hansbrough's nose. But not many rational people would say that he did not intend to create a violent collision, which ultimately resulted in lots of blood. Personally, I feel that there's no place in the sport for violence, and that what Henderson perpetrated was indeed violent. I have a hard time believing that anybody could reasonably refute that unless they felt they had something to protect.

This thread was started to discuss what, in my view, was a silly comparison between the play on Sunday and a play from a game 3 years ago. I tend to agree with this poster. I don't think Henderson intended to inflict injury, but I do believe he intended to "create a violent collision", and the unfortunate result was an injury. Whether or not that was his intent is certainly not known to anyone but him, and is debatable among others, obviously. I also believe that if this collision had resulted in a less severe injury, and less blood, it would have received little attention. However, in the play 3 years ago, no rational person would suggest that David Noel was trying to do anything other than make a defensive play. It was a 2-point game with 7 minutes to play. I don't even think it was especially violent; there are many more violent collisions than that one in the course of every Duke/UNC game.

Before I read the original column on this topic, I thought the headline was referring to the Larry Brown/Art Heyman incident from the early 60's. That would have made more sense.

tux
03-06-2007, 03:21 PM
"(including most of the Carolina team and Roy Williams) has stated that it wasn't intentional..."

Carolina's company line is pretty gracious, and it's undoubtedly not how some over there truly feel, but it serves the conference and rivalry far better than some of the things we've heard uttered so far.

As for Henderson, there's a whole lot of shuffling about the definition of intent going on. Not many rational people would say that he intended to drive his forearm into Hansbrough's nose. But not many rational people would say that he did not intend to create a violent collision, which ultimately resulted in lots of blood. Personally, I feel that there's no place in the sport for violence, and that what Henderson perpetrated was indeed violent. I have a hard time believing that anybody could reasonably refute that unless they felt they had something to protect.

All fans feel like they have something to protect, right or wrong --- the more glorious the history/tradition, the more prickly the fans; so, as a UNC fan, please spare us...

I mean: "I feel that there's no place in the sport for violence" ?? (Way to take a stand on a controversial topic.)

Now, to my point:

Well, Henderson has attempted several aggressive blocks this year --- taking full swings at the ball. It's not advisable, because even if he manages a clean block the ball ends up out of bounds and the officials are prone to call a foul even if Henderson manages not to make contact.

In light of that, I think Henderson wanted to make an emphatic block and possibly commit a hard foul to prevent a dunk. It's unfortunate that the play ended like it did, but it's the type of play Henderson has attempted in other games. Thus, I'm inclined to believe that he was trying to make a play on the ball, the ball was knocked loose, and he simply reacted to that in real-time.

I also think it's tenable that Henderson had a temporary lapse in judgment as the ball changed paths. I liken it to the Clemons/Piazza incident a couple of years ago. Recall: Piazza breaks his bat on an inside pitch; the barrel of the bat ended up at the mound, and then in a bit of a what-was-he-thinking moment, Clemons threw the severed bat back at Piazza. I think Clemons just reacted and did a very bizarre thing. He really could never explain it.

I think it's possible that Gerald was going up to take a hard swing at the ball; the ball was no longer there, and he reacted by not exactly trying to hit Tyler, but not exactly trying to hard to miss him either. (Not something for Gerald or Duke fans to be proud of, but not necessarily indicative of GH's character...) It also happened in a split second, which can be easy to forget when bombarded with slow-motion replays and still shots.

So, if true, Duke fans will gladly forgive GH and UNC fans will try and ram it down our throats... Thus, the search back for UNC transgressions: Tyler punched a State player, Noel slammed Deng (Hey, if I can't even remember the play, I have a hard time believing it was *that* bad...), that dude who transferred from Wake to Michigan to UNC doing something questionable... Whatever. At this point, it just seems inevitable that it has to play out this way.

dball
03-06-2007, 03:42 PM
"But not many rational people would say that he did not intend to create a violent collision, which ultimately resulted in lots of blood. Personally, I feel that there's no place in the sport for violence, and that what Henderson perpetrated was indeed violent. I have a hard time believing that anybody could reasonably refute that unless they felt they had something to protect.


Rational people can easily say there was no intention to create a violent collision. It's perfectly rational to say he was trying to block the ball (since he was). Noses and even quite minor scalp wounds tend to bleed a bit. This certainly makes for a more dramatic visual, but these injuries are typically less dangerous than concussions.

With that in mind, it's perfectly rational to note the Deng collision. Noel may not have intended to injure but he did. And there was no foul called.

No blood no foul. Lots of blood, flagrant foul. So be it.

WhippleSchnopple
03-06-2007, 09:28 PM
Rational people can easily say there was no intention to create a violent collision. It's perfectly rational to say he was trying to block the ball (since he was). Noses and even quite minor scalp wounds tend to bleed a bit. This certainly makes for a more dramatic visual, but these injuries are typically less dangerous than concussions.

With that in mind, it's perfectly rational to note the Deng collision. Noel may not have intended to injure but he did. And there was no foul called.

No blood no foul. Lots of blood, flagrant foul. So be it.

I'm surely not going to convince you of the difference in these two events. FWIW, I thought former Duke player Jay Bilas put it better than just about anyone on the radio the other day.

dukeimac
03-07-2007, 10:13 AM
Okay, one arm does look flexed but the other does NOT, even the hand is open. As for the legs, the only way to see if they are flexed is to watch body builders show their muscles, not sure how you get a guy in the air is flexing his leg muscles?

In taking a look at two videos, on YouTube, from different angles you get two different stories.

One video, from behind Tyler does look like Henderson led with the elbow but that is because Henderson in that video looks like he came out of no where.

The other video, from the angle of this picture, shows me Henderson went up with the idea that he would meet Tyler at the rim but when Tyler didn't get up Henderson was caught out of position.

When ever I've seen an intentional foul, the fouler usually likes to stay watching the player they fouled to see the damage that was done but in this case Henderson did not, it appears he looked at the ref to see who the foul was called on (Henderson turns his back to Tyler - would you do that if you knew you might have hurt they guy?). I believe someone (#51) may have fouled Tyler, keeping him from getting up to the rim thus causing the whole play to change, unfortunately for Henderson. The Camera guy even thought Tyler was going up such that you don't see Tyler lower half of his body.

Remember when Melo tried to throw a punch at that player earlier this year? Melo tried to get out of the place but he never turned his back to the guy, not something one does if they intentionally wanted to hurt someone. Thus, I don't think Henderson "flexed" his arms and legs to inflict harm.

Are you watching guys flexing their muscles a little too much?:eek: