Go Duke!-beat Carolina

[beaner]

We have a winner!

Wrong, I'm angry about it, of course, but why would Henderson have been kicked out and suspended then? You're ignoring that point over and over.

[Lucky Jim]

I'm not sure "instant review" gives it more validity - I mean, otherwise why would we have, say, Due Process in our court system?

[Sports Guy]

Wrong, I'm angry about it, of course, but why would Henderson have been kicked out and suspended then? You're ignoring that point over and over.

I answered this twice...Didn't ignore anything.

[beaner]

I mean, if that same situation happened when we played Tech, and Washington threw an "inadvertant" elbow and broke Singletary's nose, you are damn right I'd be pissed and calling it dirty. I can see why you're upset bean, but I stil ldon't think it was intentional.

I agree it wasnt intentional, i siad it was a dirty play...Never said he set out to break Tyler's nose.

[beaner]

I answered this twice...Didn't ignore anything.

So, the officials, the league, and I am all wrong..But you and Billy Packer are correct. Ok, I understand now.

[Sports Guy]

I agree it wasnt intentional, i siad it was a dirty play...Never said he set out to break Tyler's nose.

How was it even dirty? He wasn't even looking at him. He was obviously going up for a block and when the ball wasn't there, he pulled his arm down and by doing that, he hit Tyler.

[YardBirds13]

Are you and SG saying that the league was wrong, forget what Billy Packer says, the league suspended him instantly..when have you ever seen that happen?

I dunno, I just think you have to take intent into account when you are going to suspend someone for a conference tournament game. I mean, remember when Chris Paul got suspended two years ago? That was a blatant shot at Hodge's crotch. This was inadvertant. I could care less what Billy Packer thinks. I think the league will take a look at it, and I wouldn't be totally shocked if we hear later tonight that Henderson isn't suspended.

[BmoreBoy]

FSU over GT for finals and get 8 ACC teams in the dance =p

That's just crazy. I just scribbled it out on a peice of paper to make predictions and after the play in games it got tough.

Top seeds win play-ins then I have UMD over UNC and VA over VT in semi-finals and UMD winning it all...of course.

Sure it won't work out that way.

[Sports Guy]

So, the officials, the league, and I am all wrong..But you and Billy Packer are correct. Ok, I understand now.

No, just the officials are wrong.

Any league has a rule where if you throw a punch, you will miss the next game.

But this wasn't intentional and it wasn't a punch type thing.

So, the officials ruling on it is wrong.

[beaner]

I dunno, I just think you have to take intent into account when you are going to suspend someone for a conference tournament game. I mean, remember when Chris Paul got suspended two years ago? That was a blatant shot at Hodge's crotch. This was inadvertant. I could care less what Billy Packer thinks. I think the league will take a look at it, and I wouldn't be totally shocked if we hear later tonight that Henderson isn't suspended.

That's a fair point, but I don't see the league reversing it...It doesn't matter, Duke won't be a threat to win it with Henderson or without him.

[Lucky Jim]

But the definition of "intent" is to intend to commit the action, not bring about the result. If you think it's dirty, you must think it was intentional.

The only alternative is unintentional but reckless.

And, again, because a sentence is brought down immediately doesn't mean that the decision is more valid. Just the opposite, usually - in this case, the on-the-ground determination that it was a punch (or a comparable action) means a suspension. But there's little to support (empirically) that initial determination that it was a punch (or a comparable action). So, the suspension lends zero validity to the characterization of the punch as dirty.

[beaner]

No, just the officials are wrong.

Any league has a rule where if you throw a punch, you will miss the next game.

But this wasn't intentional and it wasn't a punch type thing.

So, the officials ruling on it is wrong.

I don't think they considered it a punch, they mentioned how "violent" it seemed. Who knows.

[YardBirds13]

That's a fair point, but I don't see the league reversing it...It doesn't matter, Duke won't be a threat to win it with Henderson or without him.

Agreed. But, we have to play them on Friday. If they don't have Henderson on Thursday, maybe State can upset them. Which would be good for me.

[beaner]

But the definition of "intent" is to intend to commit the action, not bring about the result. If you think it's dirty, you must think it was intentional.

The only alternative is unintentional but reckless.

And, again, because a sentence is brought down immediately doesn't mean that the decision is more valid. Just the opposite, usually - in this case, the on-the-ground determination that it was a punch means a suspension. But there's little to support (empirically) that initial determination that it was a punch. So, the suspension lends zero validity to the characterization of the punch as dirty.

Unintentional but reckless is a perfect description....He leaned his elbow out, there's no question about that. I don't believe he set out to hit Hansbrough though, he wasn't even looking at him.

[Lucky Jim]

I'm not sure a suspension is warranted for unintentional but reckless. And how can you call it dirty?