PDA

View Full Version : Dear Coach Hamilton



calgirl
01-17-2008, 01:05 PM
Last night I sent this email to Coach Hamilton, with a cc to Brad Berndt, Associate Director of Athletics, at Duke.

Dear Coach Hamilton:

It is with equal measure of concern and disgust that I write to you.

Ryan Reid's lack of impulse control is alarming. From my point of view, his punching Greg Paulus in back of the head, during tonight's basketball game against Duke University, should be considered assault. Mr. Reid discredited himself, you, his team, his school, and basketball itself. And if all that were not enough, his behavior falls short of the role models that young fans need to see.

His physical talent aside, is Mr. Reid capable of playing on a basketball team? It is your unenviable responsibility to know the answer to that question and act accordingly.

Help him. And if you and your staff cannot, then get him counseling. Don't do him the disservice of writing off his behavior to the heat of a game. Down the road, life won't give him a pass.

I grind no axes here: I am not a Duke student; I am not a Duke alum.

Respectfully,
XXXXXXXXX

Sir Stealth
01-17-2008, 01:11 PM
I really don't want to be mean, but you need to realize that this letter is completely over the top and will be hung up and laughed at by whoever ends up receiving it.

Duke4Ever32
01-17-2008, 02:00 PM
I really don't want to be mean, but you need to realize that this letter is completely over the top and will be hung up and laughed at by whoever ends up receiving it.

I'm not saying I think anything will come from the letter, but I don't agree - at all - that it will be treated as you've stated here.

sandinmyshoes
01-17-2008, 02:05 PM
They may not laugh at it, but they'll roll their eyes.


Reid might deserve a suspension for what he did, but he had got smacked around a couple times, although nothing intentional, so it wasn't like he was just inexplicably exploding into violence.

I'm sorry, but that letter is so prudish and over the top as to be difficult to take seriously.

allenmurray
01-17-2008, 02:21 PM
This was Reid's first game back after suspension.

Classof06
01-17-2008, 03:01 PM
I really don't want to be mean, but you need to realize that this letter is completely over the top and will be hung up and laughed at by whoever ends up receiving it.

I agree. Listen, I personally have nothing against this letter and not that you should care for what I'm about to say, but this is why people hate Duke fans.

We went into Tallahassee and got the win; I could care less about what else happens. Paulus definitely connected with Reid's head, sending him to the floor and that's why I believe Reid reacted the way he did. In fact, I'm surprised Paulus didn't get called for a foul. I'm not defending Reid, but he didn't go after Paulus because he just felt like hitting someone.

And I know this might enrage some people, but I don't even think it was a punch to be totally honest. I thought it was a punch watching it live, but after the replays, I don't think it was at all.

CDu
01-17-2008, 03:30 PM
This was Reid's first game back after suspension.

Was he suspended for fighting? If it was for academics, then I'm not sure the suspension is all that relevant.

I agree with the previous poster. It was unacceptable behavior, but it was the culmination of a few bad calls and having just been hit in the mask by Paulus. He lost his cool. It happens, unfortunately. This letter is way over the top.

Hamilton berated the player when it happened. I'm sure he'll discipline Reid appropriately internally. Reid may get a suspension even. The letter is just silly.

ugadevil
01-17-2008, 03:35 PM
Was he suspended for fighting? If it was for academics, then I'm not sure the suspension is all that relevant.


The announcers speculated that the suspension was academic and could have been a part of the investigation where all the football players were suspended. If so, good to see that Reid is so well rounded...bad decisions on and off the court.

CDu
01-17-2008, 03:39 PM
The announcers speculated that the suspension was academic and could have been a part of the investigation where all the football players were suspended. If so, good to see that Reid is so well rounded...bad decisions on and off the court.

Yeah, he certainly sounds like a model citizen, doesn't he? But yeah, if it was a suspension for academic reasons then it's really not relevant at all to his on-court antics in last night's game (other than that he knows how to get himself into trouble).

Devil in the Blue Dress
01-17-2008, 04:10 PM
The announcers speculated that the suspension was academic and could have been a part of the investigation where all the football players were suspended. If so, good to see that Reid is so well rounded...bad decisions on and off the court.

Bottom line is that we don't know what the suspension was for and the reason may fall under student privacy protection. It was poor judgment on the part of the announcers to mention the suspension in the context of the technical fouls.

Channing
01-17-2008, 04:25 PM
As mentioned in another thread - if anyone took a look at the replay from the other end, it was not as clearly a punch as the announcers made it out to be.

NovaScotian
01-17-2008, 04:39 PM
I really don't want to be mean, but you need to realize that this letter is completely over the top and will be hung up and laughed at by whoever ends up receiving it.

i second that

JWilliamson
01-17-2008, 05:27 PM
My problem with Reid is, he went out of the way to go after Paulus. It wasn't like they ended up in the same place at the end of the play. Reid was several feet away. and split two of his own guys to get to Paulus. He should have been tossed, and suspended a game. He was out of control earlier and was close to a tech. I also didn't see Hamilton berate anyone but the refs...

wumhenry
01-17-2008, 05:37 PM
Reid might deserve a suspension for what he did, but he had got smacked around a couple times, although nothing intentional, so it wasn't like he was just inexplicably exploding into violence.
As a description of anything that happened to Reid in that game, "smacked around" is an exaggeration. Launching a punch at someone who's lying on the floor in retaliation for obviously unintentional contact might not be inexplicable, but it's inexcusable.

"Not inexplicable" is an ethical limp noodle. Hell, the Holocaust wasn't inexplicable, either!

CDu
01-17-2008, 05:38 PM
My problem with Reid is, he went out of the way to go after Paulus. It wasn't like they ended up in the same place at the end of the play. Reid was several feet away. and split two of his own guys to get to Paulus. He should have been tossed, and suspended a game. He was out of control earlier and was close to a tech. I also didn't see Hamilton berate anyone but the refs...

I agree with your description of what happened. But Hamilton definitely berated Reid. He also berated the refs for missing the foul Paulus committed to strip the ball from Reid on the play. But Hamilton definitely yelled at Reid.

DevilWolf
01-17-2008, 06:05 PM
Keep in mind we had a player who was suspended for an entire season who is about to have her jersey retired. You just never know why ...

captmojo
01-17-2008, 06:08 PM
Keep in mind, we had a player last year, who was suspended due to the force of a foul that was purely accidental.:cool:

SilkyJ
01-17-2008, 07:25 PM
The announcers speculated that the suspension was academic and could have been a part of the investigation where all the football players were suspended. If so, good to see that Reid is so well rounded...bad decisions on and off the court.

well i mean FSU is practically as bad as miami when it comes to recruiting criminals.

SeattleIrish
01-17-2008, 07:34 PM
Bottom line is that we don't know what the suspension was for and the reason may fall under student privacy protection. It was poor judgment on the part of the announcers to mention the suspension in the context of the technical fouls.

DitBD:

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your post, but the announcers have no need to abide by "student privacy protection" (I'm assuming you are referencing the Family Educational Right to Privacy Act), as that only applies to university officials.

I don't believe it was poor judgment to mention the suspension; a player is suspended for 9 games for SOMETHING and, in his first game back, punches an opponent in the face (looked to me like he got Greg on the side of the mouth - the mouth was bleeding)? That's worthy of mention.

I do, however, agree that they IMPLIED it was related to academic misconduct, but they did acknowledge that was only a guess. It was a pretty good guess. F$U would be bound by FERPA not to disclose Reid's judicial records, which would include academic misconduct, whereas violations of legal codes are public record and not covered by FERPA.

s.i.

CDu
01-17-2008, 08:03 PM
DitBD:

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your post, but the announcers have no need to abide by "student privacy protection" (I'm assuming you are referencing the Family Educational Right to Privacy Act), as that only applies to university officials.

I don't believe it was poor judgment to mention the suspension; a player is suspended for 9 games for SOMETHING and, in his first game back, punches an opponent in the face (looked to me like he got Greg on the side of the mouth - the mouth was bleeding)? That's worthy of mention.

I do, however, agree that they IMPLIED it was related to academic misconduct, but they did acknowledge that was only a guess. It was a pretty good guess. F$U would be bound by FERPA not to disclose Reid's judicial records, which would include academic misconduct, whereas violations of legal codes are public record and not covered by FERPA.

s.i.

Actually, if you watch closely, it looks like the damage was done by an elbow to the mouth from another player (I believe it is Swann) before Reid reaches Paulus. Reid's swipe/swing looks as if it was a grazing blow (at best) to the neck/chin area).

And I didn't mean that bringing up the suspension wasn't relevant. I was just saying it wasn't necessarily evidence of previous violent behavior on the court.

allenmurray
01-17-2008, 08:17 PM
Bottom line is that we don't know what the suspension was for and the reason may fall under student privacy protection. It was poor judgment on the part of the announcers to mention the suspension in the context of the technical fouls.

The suspension was mentioned long, long before the "fight". It was part of a graphic on screen before the game (or maybe at the half, I forget) showing FSU's difficulty with injuries and players missing for other reasons.

Even if one had nothing to do with the other, you would think someone in their first game back after misssing the 9 games due to suspension would be a little more circumspect in their behavior.

Zeke
01-17-2008, 09:47 PM
Several players in the NHL have been arrested for assaults during matches. I think that should extend to all sports. Punching is much more than a technical foul and we don't suspend laws simply because it's a BB game. If so, do we not call it an assault if it involves brass knuckles or a weapon? There is a line and I think a punch is an assault - not an elbow during a rebound or something similar.

Got_Duke
01-18-2008, 12:51 AM
i'm sorry, but that letter is NOT, i repeat, NOT over the top

if anything, it's a little more sterile than what needs to be said

knocked around or not, that is punishable by law off the basketball court and should be treated as such . . . .

fighting is NOT part of the game, and certainly not PUNCHING somebody, not to mention somebody who is much smaller than yourself

this isn't hockey (though I think fighting, although I enjoy watching it, should be gotten rid of even in hockey


whoever thinks this letter is over the top needs to take a reality check

dukemomLA
01-18-2008, 01:41 AM
I stopped watching most hockey games years ago, due the 'hard checking', (i.e. assaults).

I don't condone Reid's actions in the FSU game -- but, this time, let's even give him the benefit of the doubt that he 'felt' abused first by GPs slap while going for the ball.

BUT in general, officials need to take back control of the game -- or in some cases...get fired, or learn the game. THUGS not allowed!!! Period!! I love a hard-hitting game, a game where every little inky-dinky foul is not called, and the game can have flow and momentum. But IMO, the hard fouls, behavior beyond fouls is unacceptable and need to be treated as such. And the penalties -- technicals, suspensions, ejections should be emphasized as needed) until things are back under control.

CMS2478
01-18-2008, 08:18 AM
I did not get to see the game and still haven't seen the Sportscenter replay......Can someone give me and UNBIASED description of what happened. Many Duke fans are saying Reid should be suspended for what he did and then I hear everyone else saying Paulus kicked him intentionally and got what he deserved. I agree that regardless of what happened, we won and need to move on. If Reid needs to be suspended, and is not, then that is on Florida St. But I agree that continual whining about it is why a lot of people don't like us in the first place. So I know I am late on this but can someone shed some UNBIASED light on what happended so that I can get a better feel for what happened. Thanks in advance!!!

CDu
01-18-2008, 08:59 AM
I did not get to see the game and still haven't seen the Sportscenter replay......Can someone give me and UNBIASED description of what happened. Many Duke fans are saying Reid should be suspended for what he did and then I hear everyone else saying Paulus kicked him intentionally and got what he deserved. I agree that regardless of what happened, we won and need to move on. If Reid needs to be suspended, and is not, then that is on Florida St. But I agree that continual whining about it is why a lot of people don't like us in the first place. So I know I am late on this but can someone shed some UNBIASED light on what happended so that I can get a better feel for what happened. Thanks in advance!!!

Well, I don't know that anyone can give an unbiased opinion, as those who have seen it all have different accounts.

Here's my take of the specific incident:

- Reid gets a rebound, Paulus slaps down at Reid to try to strip the ball. In doing so, he catches Reid on the mask and also hits his hands/arms, causing the strip.
- The ball is then loose, with Paulus falling to the floor to collect the ball.
- Several players reach in very physically, including (I believe) Swann who elbows Paulus in the mouth (which causes the bloody mouth). Somewhere in here, the whistle blows.
- Paulus kicks at either Swann or Mims (can't tell at whom he kicks). It was definitely not Reid who Paulus kicked.
- Reid has walked over to Paulus, and makes a very aggressive swipe (open-handed) in Paulus' direction. It definitely appears retalliatory and aggressive, and does not appear to be directed at the ball. The swipe either grazes Paulus' neck or chin, and doesn't look overly painful (may or may not have actually made contact).
- Double technical is handed out to Reid and Paulus.

The swipe/swing by Reid looks very different from the basket camera than from the mid-court camera (which capture different points in the action). The background camera captures the Paulus swipe and then show Reid walk up, bend down and cock his arm in punch mode. However, it doesn't really show a good angle of the swing. The mid-court angle shows the follow-through, and clearly shows an open-handed swing/swipe, with much less velocity than would have appeared from the other angle.

I don't know if Reid started as if he was going to punch and then realized that it was a dumb move or what, but the resulting action was not a punch.

JWilliamson
01-18-2008, 10:13 AM
I missed the double tech. Makes a lot more sense now, although, i really don't think Paulus deserved a tech for what he did, but I am biased

TillyGalore
01-18-2008, 10:18 AM
I did not get to see the game and still haven't seen the Sportscenter replay......Can someone give me and UNBIASED description of what happened. Many Duke fans are saying Reid should be suspended for what he did and then I hear everyone else saying Paulus kicked him intentionally and got what he deserved. I agree that regardless of what happened, we won and need to move on. If Reid needs to be suspended, and is not, then that is on Florida St. But I agree that continual whining about it is why a lot of people don't like us in the first place. So I know I am late on this but can someone shed some UNBIASED light on what happended so that I can get a better feel for what happened. Thanks in advance!!!

I think the attached article about the incident and the ACC's decision to not hand down suspensions contains a pretty good account of what happened: http://www.wral.com/sports/story/2319987/

CDu
01-18-2008, 10:23 AM
I think the attached article about the incident and the ACC's decision to not hand down suspensions contains a pretty good account of what happened: http://www.wral.com/sports/story/2319987/

That is a very accurate account. Hopefully we can stop discussing this now.

CMS2478
01-18-2008, 10:25 AM
That is a very accurate account. Hopefully we can stop discussing this now.

Sounds like it was handled appropriately............We won, let's move on!!!

jacone21
01-18-2008, 10:27 AM
I miss the days when you could have a little scrap on the court, the players could get up, dust themselves off, and play ball. It's freaking basketball. It gets physical. A little kicking, elbowing, whatever is not the same as some back alley physical assault. I know that we have to keep it in check lest things get out of hand like the 70s NBA, but do we have to get all up in arms because of a kick, or an openhanded baby tap? I bet Paulus got hit harder than that by one of his brothers over the holiday break. Can we dust ourselves off, let it go, and get ready for Clemson please?

greybeard
01-18-2008, 11:22 AM
A friend e-mailed me video of not just the incident being discussed, but the incident preceding it in which Reid put Paulus into the floor. No foul was called but that was one rough play. Paulus leaves his feet to shoot a floater, and Reid turns his body so that his shoulders are 90 degrees to Paulus' chest when Paulus comes down. It was literally like running into a brick wall, only the wall was a narrow one running directly through Paulus' middle.

With Reid's feet and shoulders aligned the way they were, Paulus was lucky to be able to get up. That was a nasty play by Reid, and dangerous. An intimidation play that went too far, in my opinion.

That same play happens by a big setting a screen in the back court against a guard applying token pressure on the dribbler and the guy could be out cold. Whether he is or not, the refs call an intentional foul, imo.

The refs failure to call anything when Reid stepped sideways and laid Paulus out was wrong. It invited things to escalate.

My understanding from the same friend was that the FSU fans were completely over the top, just short of like the fans in a European soccer stadium.

This is not good.

CDu
01-18-2008, 11:37 AM
A friend e-mailed me video of not just the incident being discussed, but the incident preceding it in which Reid put Paulus into the floor. No foul was called but that was one rough play. Paulus leaves his feet to shoot a floater, and Reid turns his body so that his shoulders are 90 degrees to Paulus' chest when Paulus comes down. It was literally like running into a brick wall, only the wall was a narrow one running directly through Paulus' middle.

With Reid's feet and shoulders aligned the way they were, Paulus was lucky to be able to get up. That was a nasty play by Reid, and dangerous. An intimidation play that went too far, in my opinion.

That same play happens by a big setting a screen in the back court against a guard applying token pressure on the dribbler and the guy could be out cold. Whether he is or not, the refs call an intentional foul, imo.

This is a big exaggeration of what happened. Paulus wasn't running full speed. It was all well after a whistle. Paulus was going up for a floater. It was not like running into a brick wall, it was like jumping up against a big man's body. Paulus hits Reid's side and Reid swats down to block Paulus' shot (though it was WELL after the whistle). Reid catches Paulus arm and shoves him to the floor.

Paulus didn't collide with Reid's shoulder - he collided with Reid's underarm/side. And it wasn't a hard collision at all. Paulus went down because of the force of the shove-down Reid does with his attempt to swat the shot combined with Paulus being off-balance. Paulus was not lucky to get up - he was unlucky to go down (caught off balance).

This sort of play happens quite frequently. I don't care for it either, as it is unnecessary. But then again defensive players don't care for offensive players taking liberties after the whistle, so I can understand the idea. But I agree it's not good.

That said, it was in no way similar to the example where a big man sets a screen on a guard. In that case, a guard is running full steam into the screen. And I'm not sure why you'd think that should be an intentional foul. The screener is allowed that space. The defender's job is to know where the screener is (which is actually the defender's teammate's job to inform him). But these plays happen nearly every single game, and concussions are extremely rare occurrences. So while the defender COULD be out cold, even that's an exaggeration (sort of like I could fall and get knocked out stepping out of the shower).

greybeard
01-18-2008, 12:17 PM
This is a big exaggeration of what happened. Paulus wasn't running full speed. It was all well after a whistle. Paulus was going up for a floater. It was not like running into a brick wall, it was like jumping up against a big man's body. Paulus hits Reid's side and Reid swats down to block Paulus' shot (though it was WELL after the whistle). Reid catches Paulus arm and shoves him to the floor.

Paulus didn't collide with Reid's shoulder - he collided with Reid's underarm/side. And it wasn't a hard collision at all. Paulus went down because of the force of the shove-down Reid does with his attempt to swat the shot combined with Paulus being off-balance. Paulus was not lucky to get up - he was unlucky to go down (caught off balance).

This sort of play happens quite frequently. I don't care for it either, as it is unnecessary. But then again defensive players don't care for offensive players taking liberties after the whistle, so I can understand the idea. But I agree it's not good.

That said, it was in no way similar to the example where a big man sets a screen on a guard. In that case, a guard is running full steam into the screen. And I'm not sure why you'd think that should be an intentional foul. The screener is allowed that space. The defender's job is to know where the screener is (which is actually the defender's teammate's job to inform him). But these plays happen nearly every single game, and concussions are extremely rare occurrences. So while the defender COULD be out cold, even that's an exaggeration (sort of like I could fall and get knocked out stepping out of the shower).

Full speed? Somebody runs full speed into the narrow, fortified wall Reid created, call the ambulance. He ain't gettin up.

The play Reid made was a BAD and NASTY one, and not because of no swipe down with his hand. He turned sideways to put the guy down and did. If he did it as you posit to send Paulus a message because he went to shoot after the whistle, it was double bad and nasty. This is a sport played by college students. You want to send messages, become a postman.

Even in the pros, a big steps that way to set a pick and the defender even brushes against the guy's uniform, FOUL! Everytime. Not sometimes. Everytime. Matter of fact, they call it most of the time whether there is contact or not.

CDu
01-18-2008, 12:28 PM
Full speed? Somebody runs full speed into the narrow, fortified wall Reid created, call the ambulance. He ain't gettin up.

The play Reid made was a BAD and NASTY one, and not because of no swipe down with his hand. He turned sideways to put the guy down and did. If he did it as you posit to send Paulus a message because he went to shoot after the whistle, it was double bad and nasty. This is a sport played by college students. You want to send messages, become a postman.

Even in the pros, a big steps that way to set a pick and the defender even brushes against the guy's uniform, FOUL! Everytime. Not sometimes. Everytime. Matter of fact, they call it most of the time whether there is contact or not.

Pure, unadulterated hyperbole. That's all I have to say. Firstly, you've wildly overstated the physicality of what happened in that particular play. Additionally, running full speed into someone's side isn't sending you to the hospital. Perhaps you've never seen a rugby game.

I did misinterpret what you said about setting a screen. If the guy is standing still and takes the screen in the chest, no foul. But apparently that's not what you meant.

greybeard
01-18-2008, 01:02 PM
Pure, unadulterated hyperbole. That's all I have to say. Firstly, you've wildly overstated the physicality of what happened in that particular play. Additionally, running full speed into someone's side isn't sending you to the hospital. Perhaps you've never seen a rugby game.

I did misinterpret what you said about setting a screen. If the guy is standing still and takes the screen in the chest, no foul. But apparently that's not what you meant.

Come on CDU, I played basketball pretty close to 5 days a week for 25 years. Ruggy is played by humans?

CDu
01-18-2008, 01:51 PM
Come on CDU, I played basketball pretty close to 5 days a week for 25 years. Ruggy is played by humans?

Then you should know that you're wildly overstating the physicality of the foul as well as the likely result of running into someone's side.

I've played basketball for nearly 15 years as a teenager/adult, and I played rugby for several years as well. I've run full speed into tackles many times, into some guys bigger than (though not as tall as) Reid. I've never gotten knocked out, never broken a bone from such a thing, and never gone to the hospital. I've only once or twice felt lucky to get up, and that was after some of the hardest hits I've taken.

The play was not nearly as physically dangerous as you make it out to be. Paulus fell more due to being off balance when the contact occurred, not because he ran into a brick wall. It wasn't polite by Reid at all, but not nearly as physical as you suggested.

greybeard
01-18-2008, 02:37 PM
Then you should know that you're wildly overstating the physicality of the foul as well as the likely result of running into someone's side.

I've played basketball for nearly 15 years as a teenager/adult, and I played rugby for several years as well. I've run full speed into tackles many times, into some guys bigger than (though not as tall as) Reid. I've never gotten knocked out, never broken a bone from such a thing, and never gone to the hospital. I've only once or twice felt lucky to get up, and that was after some of the hardest hits I've taken.

The play was not nearly as physically dangerous as you make it out to be. Paulus fell more due to being off balance when the contact occurred, not because he ran into a brick wall. It wasn't polite by Reid at all, but not nearly as physical as you suggested.

I never played rugby; have caught glimpses of it though. Here's the diff:

1. In rugby, the guy who is running with the ball, especially when he is aimed at someone's chest, shoulder, leg, whatever, is generally in a position that is designed at once to impart physical force in a localized way with his mass galvanized behind it, and to aborb a counterveiling force, since the body is in the crouched position, the ribs are collapsed, the butt muscles are positioned to absorb, as is the torso in its relation to the thighs, which in turn are positioned to absorb as they are roughly parallel to the ground. Now, when a bowling ball runs into a pin, the pin sometimes loses. We can posit that that is the ball carrier's hope, not disconnected to the realities of the physical forces at work, even if in this instance the bowling pin is actually larger than the ball.

2. On the other hand, Paulus' body was entended. The force imparted to that body in the upper quadrant would cause that quadrant to bend backwards, which the spine will permit to a limited extent, but very limited. Of course, throwing back the upper quadrant of the spine with a little thing that weighs 10 pounds or more attached will create quite a backward force. Unless the spine were to give way, which would be very nasty to witness, one will follow the head backwards, unless one is particularly adroit, which Paulus was and is, in which case one will manage to have the back hit the ground and tuck the head so one's skull is not cracked by contact with a hard wood floor. You with me on this CDu.

3. In other words, the bowling ball in paragraph 1 is configured to impart maximum force in a very confined space with his entire mass behind the point of impact and ready to expand as needed in the event that the impact received (Newton's second law or was it third) requires it. He is in fine shape, except maybe his shoulder gets dislocated, but not if he tucks it right. We are not worrying about his head because, hey, the guy is playing rugby, right? Paulus on the other hand had a brick wall step in front of him while extended in the air and was oh so vulnerable to the force he was about to gratuitously receive.

4. Finally, take a look at Paulus's face after he hit the ground and realized that he was still alive and in one piece. This is a guy who was recruited to play quarterback for Notre Dame. He was ready for Mr. Reid, and needed a piece of him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gzRtB09mzk


Reid's play was BAD and NASTY, PERIOD.

CDu
01-18-2008, 02:48 PM
I never played rugby; have caught glimpses of it though. Here's the diff:

1. In rugby, the guy who is running with the ball, especially when he is aimed at someone's chest, shoulder, leg, whatever, is generally in a position that is designed at once to impart physical force in a localized way with his mass galvanized behind it, and also to aborb such force as in the crouched position the ribs are collapsed, the butt muscles are positioned to absorb, as is the torso in its relation to the thighs, which in turn are positioned to absorb as they are roughly parallel to the ground. Now, when a bowling ball runs into a pin, the pin sometimes loses. We can posit that that is the ball carrier's hope, not disconnected to the realities of the physical forces at work, even if in this instance the bowling pin is actually larger than the ball.

2. On the other hand, Paulus' body was entended. The force imparted to that body in the upper quadrant would cause that quadrant to bend backwards, which the spine will permit to a limited extent, but very limited. Of course, throwing back the upper quadrant of the spine with a little thing that weighs 10 pounds or more attached will create quite a backward force. Unless the spine were to give way, which would be very nasty to witness, one will follow the head backwards, unless one is particularly adroit, which Paulus was and is, in which case one will manage to have the back hit the ground and tuck the head so one's skull is not cracked by contact with a hard wood floor. You will me on this CDu.

3. In other words, the bowling ball in paragraph 1 is configured to impart maximum force in a very confined space with his entire mass behind the point of impact and ready to expand as needed in the event that the impact received (Newton's second law or was it third) requires it. He is in fine shape, except maybe his shoulder gets dislocated, but not if he tucks it right. We are not worrying about his head because, hey, the guy is playing rugby, right? Paulus on the other hand had a brick wall step in front of him while extended in the air and was oh so vulnerable to the force he was about to gratuitously receive.

4. Finally, take a look at Paulus's face after he hit the ground and realized that he was still alive and in one piece. This is a guy who was recruited to play quarterback for Notre Dame. He was ready for Mr. Reid, and needed a piece of him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gzRtB09mzk


Reid's play was BAD and NASTY, PERIOD.

You've wasted a lot of text here trying to justify a stance that is just ridiculous. Yes, it was a mean-spirited play by Reid. It was not nearly as violent or physical an act as you suggest. Paulus was not merely lucky to get up. Paulus was off-balance, and that was the extent of it. He was never in danger. He was not at any significant risk of death (as you suggest in #4).

Yes, it was a cheap shot. I never disagreed there. However, it was not nearly as dangerous as you're saying. I'm not going to dignify the rest of it with a response, as it's just silly and pointless. I don't quibble with your science knowledge, just your application to this event. You are wildly exaggerating the play, so what's the point in humoring your extensive analysis of a play you've completely misinterpreted to begin with?

It was a mean-spirited play by Reid, but that's the extent of it. Paulus was in no grave danger. He wasn't lucky to get up. That type of play happens ALL THE TIME. Players get up ALL THE TIME. Is there the rare (one in a million type thing) where the player lands wrong and really hurts himself? Sure. But that's the case in any situation of contact. He was not lucky to be alive, or lucky to get up, or lucky to avoid the hospital. Quite the converse is true: he would have been extremely UNlucky to have been seriously hurt.

greybeard
01-18-2008, 03:09 PM
You've wasted a lot of text here trying to justify a stance that is just ridiculous. Yes, it was a mean-spirited play by Reid. It was not nearly as violent or physical an act as you suggest. Paulus was not merely lucky to get up. Paulus was off-balance, and that was the extent of it. He was never in danger. He was not at any significant risk of death (as you suggest in #4).

Yes, it was a cheap shot. I never disagreed there. However, it was not nearly as dangerous as you're saying. I'm not going to dignify the rest of it with a response, as it's just silly and pointless. I don't quibble with your science knowledge, just your application to this event. You are wildly exaggerating the play, so what's the point in humoring your extensive analysis of a play you've completely misinterpreted to begin with?

It was a mean-spirited play by Reid, but that's the extent of it. Paulus was in no grave danger. He wasn't lucky to get up. That type of play happens ALL THE TIME. Players get up ALL THE TIME. Is there the rare (one in a million type thing) where the player lands wrong and really hurts himself? Sure. But that's the case in any situation of contact. He was not lucky to be alive, or lucky to get up, or lucky to avoid the hospital. Quite the converse is true: he would have been extremely UNlucky to have been seriously hurt.

As always, your views are formidable and we disagree.

Falling backwards on a basketball court rarely, rarely, rarely happens. It is very dangerous. You let your head go, and you have a concussion, in all probability, and maybe worse.

Which part of what I just said do you find ridiculous? Which parts do you agree with? Not really posited as questions I expect answers to. You and I enjoy going back and forth; I have a feeling we have worn everyone else out.

You needn't answer. If you need the last word, it's only fair. Go for it.

CDu
01-18-2008, 03:51 PM
As always, your views are formidable and we disagree.

Falling backwards on a basketball court rarely, rarely, rarely happens. It is very dangerous. You let your head go, and you have a concussion, in all probability, and maybe worse.

Which part of what I just said do you find ridiculous? Which parts do you agree with? Not really posited as questions I expect answers to. You and I enjoy going back and forth; I have a feeling we have worn everyone else out.

You needn't answer. If you need the last word, it's only fair. Go for it.

Seems rude to ask me questions and then imply that a response by me would simply be to get the last word. But I won't take offense if that wasn't the intent.

As for what I disagree with, here goes:

- I disagree with your description of Reid's intent by turning his body. Anyone who's trying to challenge a shot turns sideways so as to extend his arm and get as high and close to where the ball will be as possible. That's what Reid is doing.
- I disagree with your assessment that Paulus fell simply because of contact with the torso area of Reid. Reid grabbed his wrist and shoved it down. Paulus made barely any body contact with Reid. The shoving of Paulus' arm caused Paulus to lose his balance.
- I disagree with the assessment that Paulus' fall was very dangerous and likely to result in injury. Paulus lands on his feet and falls backwards. He wasn't overly out of control. His hands brace his fall. Could a serious injury have POSSIBLY happened? Sure. But it was highly unlikely.
- I disagree with your statement that falling backwards happens very rarely. It happens every time someone flops. It happens when people lose their balance on a rebound. It happens in plays similar to what happened there, but on actual blocked shots. OCCASIONALLY, the fall can be dangerous. But most of those falls (like the Paulus one), aren't that dangerous.
- I disagree with your assessment of why Paulus got angry. It had nothing to do with any near-death experience. Paulus got angry because he felt Reid was trying to intimidate Paulus.

I don't necessarily disagree with your science discussion. You may have a very good grasp of the human body. But when you misread the play so badly, it makes the science unnecessary. As I described above, I think you misclassified what actually happened. So, applying science (even really good science) to a faulty premise leads to a waste of the science.

wumhenry
01-18-2008, 04:01 PM
Finally, take a look at Paulus's face after he hit the ground and realized that he was still alive and in one piece.
Not to mention the shot of him spitting blood into a towel after the last fracas. Though that might have been Swann's handiwork rather than Reid's.


Reid's play was BAD and NASTY, PERIOD.
No argument there.