The Phracas at the Phog

[Steven43]

I thought it looked like stomping but if there was no stomping going on then 2 games seems about right. If De Sousa put the stool down on his own, I could get on board with with 12 games. He had to have it taken from him. He got off light.

100% correct — the chair was taken from him. You can see on the following video that he looks back to see who pulled the chair out of his hands. I would not have wanted to be in his sightlines and in close proximity had that chair not been taken from him.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thespun.com/big-12/kansas-jayhawks/new-video-angle-emerges-from-kansas-kansas-state-brawl/amp

[Edouble]

What are the chances that he actually wrote that apology himself?

About the same chances as a unc basketball player writing a paper himself.

[rsvman]

Among the yaddas, was this, "Could the result of the fight have been worse and people, including spectators, injured? Yes, that could have happened. But it didn't happen. The Big 12 had to sanction what happened, not what could have happened."

.....

This is especially disappointing coming from someone who graduated law school.

I'm not a lawyer, but I watch a lot of law shows on tv, and I think that cases are fairly frequently based on "what could have happened" and not solely on what actually happened. Again, not a lawyer, but let's think about a classic Law and Order case, in which a guy takes a firearm that he believes to be loaded, points it at somebody, and pulls the trigger. Because the gun was not actually loaded, nobody died. But they charged him with attempted murder based on the fact that the guy thought the gun was loaded, and therefore was trying to kill somebody.

The flip side of that discussion is interesting, too. What if a guy picks up a gun that believes to be unloaded, points it at somebody, pulls the trigger, and the guy dies? Well, that ends up being manslaughter, because the guy thought the gun was unloaded.

So, the first guy, who harms nobody, gets a higher charge ("attempted murder") than the second guy, who actually kills somebody ("manslaughter").



Ummmm....oh yeah, I think I've proved my point.

[jv001]

This is especially disappointing coming from someone who graduated law school.

I'm not a lawyer, but I watch a lot of law shows on tv, and I think that cases are fairly frequently based on "what could have happened" and not solely on what actually happened. Again, not a lawyer, but let's think about a classic Law and Order case, in which a guy takes a firearm that he believes to be loaded, points it at somebody, and pulls the trigger. Because the gun was not actually loaded, nobody died. But they charged him with attempted murder based on the fact that the guy thought the gun was loaded, and therefore was trying to kill somebody.

The flip side of that discussion is interesting, too. What if a guy picks up a gun that believes to be unloaded, points it at somebody, pulls the trigger, and the guy dies? Well, that ends up being manslaughter, because the guy thought the gun was unloaded.

So, the first guy, who harms nobody, gets a higher charge ("attempted murder") than the second guy, who actually kills somebody ("manslaughter").



Ummmm...oh yeah, I think I've proved my point.

I liked those old Law and Order TV shows more than I do the Law and Order SVU ones. Another case of me being old school. As for the KU..KSU fight, I told one of my Duke friends at church, "the punishments from the game came down" and he asked me what they were and I said they put the Cheats on probation for two years. I thought he was going to die laughing.

GoDuke!

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Cleveland State will lose its leading scorer for the rest of the season.

LOL, sporks! Well played....

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Further disclosure: I think the officials are too lax letting the scoring team handle the ball after a made basket. If a player from the scoring team grabs the ball and does ANYTHING but let it go under the basket (and that includes throwing the ball to the official AND includes throwing it to a player on the other team) it should be a delay of game warning/violation. If the ball gets accidentally knocked away, that should be an incidental delay (official’s stoppage). Call it consistently throughout and it isn’t hard.

But like I said, I would also be totally fine if the clock stopped every time a score happens.

Not relevant to anything, but I seem to recall Laettner being spoken to constantly for touching the ball after it went through the hoop.

[CDu]

Not relevant to anything, but I seem to recall Laettner being spoken to constantly for touching the ball after it went through the hoop.

Yeah, it probably used to be enforced. But sort of like other rules over time (like traveling, palming, contact, etc) , officials have let it slide more and more over time. I still remember the time Pauli’s drew a tech on a FSU (I think) player by wrestling for the ball after a made Duke basket. And Chris Paul taking a made Wake shot out of the net, twirling the ball around his waist twice and then throwing the ball to the ref. Neither got a delay of game warning. Ridiculous.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Yeah, it probably used to be enforced. But sort of like other rules over time (like traveling, palming, contact, etc) , officials have let it slide more and more over time. I still remember the time Pauli’s drew a tech on a FSU (I think) player by wrestling for the ball after a made Duke basket. And Chris Paul taking a made Wake shot out of the net, twirling the ball around his waist twice and then throwing the ball to the ref. Neither got a delay of game warning. Ridiculous.

I have no doubt Laettner was doing it for some perceived competitive advantage. God bless him.

[JayZee]

I have no doubt Laettner was doing it for some perceived competitive advantage. God bless him.

Just giving his esteemed opponent a little extra time to pontificate getting schooled by a 7ft version of Luke from 90210.

[Duke79UNLV77]

Not relevant to anything, but I seem to recall Laettner being spoken to constantly for touching the ball after it went through the hoop.

Laettner often did it once a game, knowing he’d get a warning.

[devildeac]

OK, time to set this straight about touching the ball after your team scored. From A Season Is A Lifetime and as far as K was concerned, it was the Laettner rule.
It's five paragraphs in the book, I can't find it on-line anywhere so I'll quote some and summarize it from my copy of the book.

Duke-WFU 2/23/92

"Duke leads 67-57 with 5:19 to go and Laettner gets his 2nd T of the game for hanging on the rim, the only time it was called on Duke all year. It was the 3rd T that outraged K. The cheats got a T for touching the ball when they complained about Laettner touching the ball after Duke scored. Dean's myth whined to Barrakat the acc supervisor of officials who sent a memo out and K thought this was the only thing officials were paying attention to for a couple weeks whether it was deliberate or not or interfered with the next play. K thought it wouldn't have mattered much if someone else was the original offender OR the original whiner had been someone who was less prominent. You Suck Richard then T'ed up G. Hill with the irony being the touched ball went right to a WFU player who began play immediately. K thought the ref might get the "frickin' Congressional Medal of Honor."

And, on the very next play after the Duke T, a WFU player touched the ball after a WFU basket and nothing was called. K didn't complain publicly but he did talk to Barrakat the next day."

[tteettimes]

Paparro reference always brings back that one memory...others of course ...but
Damn I’m glad I was there....talk about Cameron rock in’...Richter scale...thank you Crazies 🥃🥃🥃😂😂😂

[jv001]

OK, time to set this straight about touching the ball after your team scored. From A Season Is A Lifetime and as far as K was concerned, it was the Laettner rule.
It's five paragraphs in the book, I can't find it on-line anywhere so I'll quote some and summarize it from my copy of the book.

Duke-WFU 2/23/92

"Duke leads 67-57 with 5:19 to go and Laettner gets his 2nd T of the game for hanging on the rim, the only time it was called on Duke all year. It was the 3rd T that outraged K. The cheats got a T for touching the ball when they complained about Laettner touching the ball after Duke scored. Dean's myth whined to Barrakat the acc supervisor of officials who sent a memo out and K thought this was the only thing officials were paying attention to for a couple weeks whether it was deliberate or not or interfered with the next play. K thought it wouldn't have mattered much if someone else was the original offender OR the original whiner had been someone who was less prominent. You Suck Richard then T'ed up G. Hill with the irony being the touched ball went right to a WFU player who began play immediately. K thought the ref might get the "frickin' Congressional Medal of Honor."

And, on the very next play after the Duke T, a WFU player touched the ball after a WFU basket and nothing was called. K didn't complain publicly but he did talk to Barrakat the next day."

Coach K was correct when he basically said there were rules for the Dean's Cheats(he doesn't call them that, I do) and rules for the rest of the conference. Little did Coach K know at that time, the cheats were cheating in other ways.

GoDuke!

[BD80]

Coach K was correct when he basically said there were rules for the Dean's Cheats(he doesn't call them that, I do) and rules for the rest of the conference. Little did Coach K know at that time, the cheats were cheating in other ways.

GoDuke!

it is like the Patriots under Belichick. They get caught cheating at some things, makes you wonder how much cheating doesn't get caught. Wouldn't make sense to only cheat a little.

[cspan37421]

Hell of a different tone than he took with grayson.

That was my sense too, but I don't remember exactly. I think it would be really instructive if his respective takes were put side-by-side in the same post.

[coldriver10]

This is especially disappointing coming from someone who graduated law school.

I'm not a lawyer, but I watch a lot of law shows on tv, and I think that cases are fairly frequently based on "what could have happened" and not solely on what actually happened. Again, not a lawyer, but let's think about a classic Law and Order case, in which a guy takes a firearm that he believes to be loaded, points it at somebody, and pulls the trigger. Because the gun was not actually loaded, nobody died. But they charged him with attempted murder based on the fact that the guy thought the gun was loaded, and therefore was trying to kill somebody.

The flip side of that discussion is interesting, too. What if a guy picks up a gun that believes to be unloaded, points it at somebody, pulls the trigger, and the guy dies? Well, that ends up being manslaughter, because the guy thought the gun was unloaded.

So, the first guy, who harms nobody, gets a higher charge ("attempted murder") than the second guy, who actually kills somebody ("manslaughter").



Ummmm...oh yeah, I think I've proved my point.

Having been a Philosophy major in college, I love these sorts of ethical discussions. This is classic deontology (morality is based on the action itself) vs consequentialism (the outcome matters in how the action should be judged). I think deontology certainly makes sense, but it's emotionally difficult not separating actions based on outcome.

As someone who ended up going to medical school, *finally* my philosophy major has served its purpose on an internet sports message board.

[OldPhiKap]

Having been a Philosophy major in college, I love these sorts of ethical discussions. This is classic deontology (morality is based on the action itself) vs consequentialism (the outcome matters in how the action should be judged). I think deontology certainly makes sense, but it's emotionally difficult not separating actions based on outcome.

As someone who ended up going to medical school, *finally* my philosophy major has served its purpose on an internet sports message board.

I thought that "deontology" was the study of dual-sport athletes.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I thought that "deontology" was the study of dual-sport athletes.

I thought it was football thread discussions of Deon Jackson and whether he is getting enough touches as running back for Duke.

[Indoor66]

Having been a Philosophy major in college, I love these sorts of ethical discussions. This is classic deontology (morality is based on the action itself) vs consequentialism (the outcome matters in how the action should be judged). I think deontology certainly makes sense, but it's emotionally difficult not separating actions based on outcome.

As someone who ended up going to medical school, *finally* my philosophy major has served its purpose on an internet sports message board.

How about when a patient is in the office? 🤣

[Indoor66]

I thought that "deontology" was the study of dual-sport athletes.

Nah. It's a dental specialty.