SFN: Hansbrough vs Henderson

This topic was stealing center stage…so, we wanted to extricate it from the State-Duke entry that should be focused on…well…State and Duke!

With 14 seconds to go in today’s Duke/Carolina game – and with the game firmly in the hands of the Tarheels who had a 12 point lead – Duke’s Gerald Henderson connected with a forearm across the bridge of Tyler Hansbrough’s nose on a put-back attempt after a rebound of missed Carolina free throw.

The N&O continues:

The contact was after the ball left Hansbrough’s hands and Henderson was ejected. Hansbrough exited the court with blood pouring from his face and fuming at the intensity and timing of the foul.

The game referees released a statement after the game explaining the call.

“By rule, this is a flagrant foul for combative and confrontational action. It is ruled a fight. By rule, it is an automatic ejection. By NCAA rule, he must sit out the next game.”

Hansbrough rebounded a Bobby Frasor missed free throw with 14 seconds left and instead of kicking the ball out to let the clock expire he was playing tough and trying to physically position himself for more points – preferably on a dunk in the face of the Blue Devils. What was Duke supposed to do? Just allow Tyler Hansbrough to go up for a posterizing dunk on a play that never needed to happen in the first place (why was Hansbrough on the court up 12 with 14 seconds to go)?

Absolutely not. Duke should be allowed to play just as hard as Hansbrough.

People who have never played basketball/sports don’t understand how quick things happen in real time. From the comfort of your couch and the endless slow motion replays, you can’t help but get the impression that these athletes can control things that are happening at phenomenally quick speeds. This is not reality.

I just watched some Charlotte news footage that was taken from behind the basket in real time. Folks, this happened SO FAST that NOBODY could have stopped their swipe at full speed in mid-air. It just doesn’t work that way. This ain’t The Matrix. People can’t contort their movements like that by stopping time no matter how spoiled your high definition viewing in slow motion makes you.

If you watch the replay, Henderson’s swat would have been very close to where Hansbrough would have had the ball if the ball hadn’t been blocked/swiped by another Duke player before it got to Henderson. But, the block of the ball from behind changed the whole play and the positioning of Hansbrough.

By then it was far was too late for Henderson. He was committed to his anticipation and was swinging hard and trying to make a block on a big guy trying to dunk. When the ball was deflected and was no longer at the projected spot, Henderson’s follow through came right into Hansbrough’s face. Had the ball not been knocked out of Hansbrough’s hands .19 of a second before Henderson tried to dunk then all would have been fine. The worst thing that Gerald Henderson did was forget his black trench coat and Keanu Reaves super powers.

It was unfortunate. But, it was also uncontrollable at that speed and in that situation.

No. Wait. I take that back. It was completely controllable. All Hansbrough had to do was kick the ball out to a guard to hold for 14 seconds instead of trying to get some nasty slam designed to rub salt in Duke’s wounds. Or, all Roy Williams had to do was to not have his starters in the game up 12 with 14 seconds. That would have controlled the situation.

But…of course…Hansbrough has the unalienable right to play hard and the Duke players aren’t given that same right? Why is that Tyler Hansbrough has the innate right to be intense and playing extremely hard at the end of the game but nobody else is allowed to do the same thing?

The play was hard; I personally think that it was meant to be hard; I definitely do not believe that it was meant to be intentional; The problem lies in the interpretation of ‘flagrant’

“By rule, this is a flagrant foul for combative and confrontational action”. OK. I buy that. If that is the rule for “flagrant” then I buy it. The problem therefore is that we have all seen dozens of fouls this season that constitute “combative and confrontational action”.

Ironically, it is the very Tyler Hansbrough who is involved in this situation that literally took a swipe/swing at the head of Brandon Costner in the Tarheels visit to Raleigh earlier in the year. Hansbrough barely missed conncecting with Costner, but did that somehow diminish the “combative and confrontational action” of taking a blatant swing at an opposing player in behavior that IN NO WAY was related to the play of the ball?

In the end, I think that I generally agree with these comments made by ESPN’s Pat Forde in this entry.

After viewing the replay several times, I agree that the blow to the face did not appear to be intentional. Henderson was going to block Hansbrough’s shot, then Hansbrough’s arm was pulled down and the ball flew out and Henderson’s forearm smashed Psycho T’s face. This was not a premeditated knockout.

However, Henderson appeared to be going in with the intent to deliver an enthusiastically hard foul. There is a place in the game for hard fouls, for forcefully preventing easy baskets, for occasionally planting an opponent on his rear end.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

06-07 Basketball General Media

114 Responses to SFN: Hansbrough vs Henderson

  1. PackGirl 03/05/2007 at 3:31 PM #

    As I seem to recall, when Horner got his nose whacked and it bled all over the place, there was no foul called at all – definitely not a flagrant one.

  2. GAWolf 03/05/2007 at 3:40 PM #

    DAN… Sorry if I misunderstood your point. I was playing ball 10 years and 20 pounds ago and got up under a bigger guy going to get a rebound. I was trying to box him out from down low. He went up and got the rebound and came down on my head with an elbow. 5 stiches above the eye. Is that a foul at all much less a flagrant foul warranting ejection? It’s probably not even a foul.

    I understand the difference in what you’re saying…. but I don’t agree with it. You’re saying if the intent is there to foul hard and some damage is done, you should be ejected. I would say unless it’s deemed an “intentional act” outside of the normal scope of play and reasonable contact within the realm of the game, an ejection isn’t warranted. Examples: A punch to the groin, a closed fist swing at someone, a clear elbow away from the play, a kick to a player on the ground, etc…

    I was watching a special recently on Barakat and he was saying that the thing that he thinks he did best for ACC basketball through his role as heading up officiating was teaching the refs to “suck on their whistles instead of blow on them.” I realize this opens up an entirely different can of worms for debate, but the point is “they” like to pride themselves on the ACC being a “physical” league as it allegedly prepares ACC teams better for post-season play. (I realize even this idea is worthy of debate.) So we have a physical league…. why is this very close call worthy of ejection?

    Don’t get me wrong, I think Duke plays more dirty pool than any team in the conference and as most Pack fans do I appreciate the opportunity to play Duke sans Henderson on Thursday. However, I just don’t see it.

  3. GAWolf 03/05/2007 at 3:41 PM #

    Packgirl: Good call. Horner even had his broken… Tyler just had a boo boo and happens to be a bleeder. Anyone know if Tyler even had to have stitches?

  4. Gene 03/05/2007 at 3:47 PM #

    I believe Henderson deliberately went after Hansborough because Hansborough has so much will-power, he could just channel his will-power (‘chi’ in Chinese thinking, which can be directed to knock enemy combatants off balance) and redirect it to deflect someone just falling on him accidentally.

    I might go something like this video:

  5. Pack84 03/05/2007 at 3:48 PM #

    “I know Hansbrough sure did look surprised. He’s more used to taking shots in the mouth.
    Yeah – money shots.

  6. Pack Laddie 03/05/2007 at 3:54 PM #

    packgirl, I may be wrong, but IIRC, a foul was called in Atlanta–on Horner!

  7. PackGirl 03/05/2007 at 3:58 PM #

    I thought there was no call, but you may be right. I remember being very irked. They probably called Horner for a reach-in with his nose.

  8. GAWolf 03/05/2007 at 4:01 PM #

    GENE knows the secret of the Ninja.

  9. Mr O 03/05/2007 at 4:07 PM #

    Pack Laddie: You are right. I misread what the Duke guy originally posted. Rou subbed in a Sr.(Dewey Burke) for sophmore Marcus Ginyard.

    So Roy could have and should have taken Tyler out.

    I think everyone, for the most part, agrees that Henderson didn’t purposely hit him in the nose. But he definitely purposely fouled him hard and put himself in position to get a flagrant foul.

    Then most importantly, the officials handled it apropriately.

  10. Pack Laddie 03/05/2007 at 4:26 PM #

    Given my general disdain for officials, it pains me to say this, but at the end of the day, I think they got it right. If I am Duke, I would find it hard to argue with it.

  11. Lunatic Fringe 03/05/2007 at 5:17 PM #

    TNCSU: I guess it is only deliberate and ill intentioned if you connect with your blow.

    As SFN pointed out in their earlier post on the other blog…

    “If you watch the replay, Henderson’s swat would have been very close to where Hansbrough would have had the ball if the ball hadn’t been blocked/swiped by another player. But, the block of the ball from behind changed the whole play and the positioning of Hansbrough.”

    For reference:
    http://www.statefansnation.com/index.php/archives/2007/03/04/state-vs-duke-on-thursday/#comments

    The difference between the two plays is that Henderson was in the act of preventing Hans from scoring (be it a block or hard foul). The elbow swing by Hans was after the play was over, the rest of the teams had cleared the area, and BC was well in control of the basketball when Hans through his little tantrum. How exactly was his tantrum part of a basketball play?

    For the record, I believe that both players were punished properly for their actions. The result of the Henderson’s elbow was obviously much worse, because he actually connected with Hans’s nose. However, you cannot tell me that Henderson’s intention was to hit Hans anymore than you could tell me that Hans’s intention was to miss BC, because only they know their true intentions.

    I am not sure of Henderson’s real intention, but it was definitely part of a basketball play, which was to prevent Hans from scoring. I hardly see how that is debatable.

  12. BobLee 03/05/2007 at 5:24 PM #

    In my current column I have removed your F-Bomb Alley faction from their place as Most Insane Idiot Fans in The Triangle. Tar Heels Since 6:15 Sunday Night have taken your place.

    Our Lunatic Fringe has set new lows for humanoid behavior and a testament to the power of the Internet in fanning Lunatic Lies & Loathing.

    So far 8 fans out of over 3.000 have agreed with my take on “the incident”. Actually more than I figured on.

    BEST LINE so far appeared up above here …. to the effect ” … Henderson gets suspended, Hansbro gets a broken nose … only way to make it better would be if the roof had fallen on all of’em” …. THAT IS FUNNY.

    If we could bottle Sports Hate we could replace fossil fuels and get 100 miles to the gallon of pure loathing. I’ve received a few LuLus today from quite insane Heels that match anything I’ve ever received from any Wuff.

    Some scary sumb*tches out there … for sure.

    BobLee

  13. Mr O 03/05/2007 at 5:59 PM #

    Boblee: Link your take please.

  14. GAWolf 03/05/2007 at 6:00 PM #

    Lunatic Fringe may have better explained what I was getting at before. Hansbroughs swing at BC was much more intentional than Henderson’s Bionic Elbow to Hansbrough’s nose. However, since Henderson landed his he gets the axe. Since Hansbrough fights like a girl, he got just a T. It really doesn’t make sense to me and it goes back to the concept that we reward the guy who a) fights like a girl and/or b) has bad aim with his blows.

    Blood=ejections. So… in retrospect, slipping a sock with a bar of soap in it onto the court and wacking someone in the ribs with it should at worst be a flagrant foul with no ejection.

  15. the_phisherman 03/05/2007 at 6:22 PM #

    ^^I thought there was no call, but you may be right. I remember being very irked. They probably called Horner for a reach-in with his nose.

    They actually called a blocking foul on Horner.

  16. TNCSU 03/05/2007 at 6:23 PM #

    ^^^I am not sure of Henderson’s real intention, but it was definitely part of a basketball play, which was to prevent Hans from scoring. I hardly see how that is debatable.

    Check out any of the Around the Horn, PTI, etc. If anyone thinks he didn’t deliberately elbow Hansbro across the nose, I’ll simply say, I disagree — as does every other logical sports writer I’ve seen speak about it. He was not trying to prevent him from scoring — the ball had long been deflected back toward the foul line. It was NOT a basketball play — not even CLOSE. So, you’re right, it’s not really debateable. Most all say he’s lucky only to have a one game suspension.

    Also, to equate the other supposedly swing as being the same. That’s like saying you should receive the same penalty for attempted murder as you do for murder. Henderson’s elbow bordered on assault and battery — Hansbro was in mid-air, basically defenseless. And truthfully, an elbow hurts as much or MORE than a direct punch. Henderson knew what he was doing, and he’s suffering the consequence, although it could/possibly should be a stiffer penalty.

  17. TNCSU 03/05/2007 at 6:26 PM #

    First, Horner was on defense — and while the refs made a bad call, the offensive player had no idea he was coming down on Horner’s nose — no intention to hurt him. Hansbro was on offense, and Henderson on D. Big difference…for anyone who’s played, that doesn’t need further explanation.

  18. PackGirl 03/05/2007 at 6:55 PM #

    ^The point is that Horner was fouled, was bleeding profusely, yet the foul was called against him. Doesn’t matter the intent or who was on D, that was very wrong. Just pointing out how a call on a State player with a bloody nose was handled by the refs. If that had been hansblo, it would have been a different story.

  19. highstick 03/05/2007 at 8:08 PM #

    Reminds me of the time that Joe Scarpati and I got our feet tangled up going for a rebound and Don Montgomery fell on me with my arm behind my back. Crap, Montgomery outweighed me by 75-100 lbs and was at least 6″ taller. It hurt and I went to get x-rayed by the N C State infirmary. Was it intentional? No way, just part of the game!

    Hansborough’s blood had nothing to do with it! It’s not like a hockey call where “blood drawn on a highsticking call” sends you to the box, but it’s not a game misconduct penalty which will get you a suspension.

  20. Lunatic Fringe 03/05/2007 at 8:33 PM #

    TNCSU…We will then simply have to agree to disagree about how we view the play. In the end, it really does not matter what we think anyway.

    BobLee probably said it best…

    “Considering that Tyler lives in the paint 98% of the game it’s a wonder his face doesn’t look like one of those sides of meat that Rocky Balboa used to punch before meeting Apollo Creed. Tyler, bless his heart, has more notches on his own x-rated rib-crackin’ elbows than Billy The Kid had on his six shooters.”

    Hans plays physical so it is not surprising that when you play physical that you have others play you physical as well. Physical play has a tendency to get out of hand and when it does people get hurt.

    Mr O…here is the link to BobLee’s article:

    http://www.bobleesays.com/RunScript.asp?page=45&Article_ID=386&AR=AR&p=ASP\~Pg45.asp

  21. Lunatic Fringe 03/05/2007 at 9:34 PM #

    TNCSU…

    I finally got a chance to watch PTI per your advice and did NOT hear any comments at all that alluded to them believing Henderson’s elbow as being deliberate. In fact, they both stated that it was pretty much impossible to determine if it was intentional or not…

    Wilbon: “I am not saying that it was intentional at all, but it was excessive…”

    Tony: “…it looked like he launched himself and that if he could not block the shot he was in the position to give a hard foul…”

    They both agreed that the act was “reckless and excessive” and that the punishment was suitable for the act.

    Wilbon: “…just because it was accidental does not mean they should not be punished…”

    Tony: “…whether it was intentional or not the kid got knockdown pretty good and got his face split open…” “…hard to argue with a 1 game suspension…”

    I guess it really is a matter of perspective, but they both stated that they did not believe Henderson should be villianized for the incident and neither do I. I see it as a hard foul where the kid went too far and is getting punished for his mistake.

  22. gumbydammit 03/05/2007 at 9:48 PM #

    Doesn’t anyone remember earlier this season when Horner took a non-shooting-arm forearm shiver to the face from a player going up for a shot (sorry I don’t remember the game or player) that drew blood an broke Horner’s nose? NO FOUL on that play. Maybe one was deserved, maybe not. Arguably one would be hard pressed to justify breaking someone’s nose with your trailing arm as “accidental contact”. Point was, there was not a lot of dwelling on the call/no call. No debate at all.

    If GH wanted to punch or elbow TH in the face, that wasn’t the right move. Foul him? Probably the intent. Who knows for sure? But to say he intentionally tried to give him a stunner? I just can’t buy it from the replays I saw. Even though that means that I (for the first time in my life) agree with Billy “Fudge” on the subject.

    Funny thing was, as you watch the replay, you can just see the referees mentally caving in to the home crowd.

    Spineless bitches.

  23. highstick 03/05/2007 at 10:22 PM #

    Anyone listen to the Packman today? I understand he even thought Billy P. was wrong in his assessment after the foul.

    Also one writer on Inside Carolina quoted Doyel as being an expert on the altercation. What a hoot!!!

  24. choppack1 03/05/2007 at 10:52 PM #

    “Check out any of the Around the Horn, PTI, etc. If anyone thinks he didn’t deliberately elbow Hansbro across the nose, I’ll simply say, I disagree — as does every other logical sports writer I’ve seen speak about it. He was not trying to prevent him from scoring — the ball had long been deflected back toward the foul line. It was NOT a basketball play — not even CLOSE. So, you’re right, it’s not really debateable. ”

    Experts like sports journalists??? I’m sold…Those guys are experts at this kind of thing.

    I don’t know if it’s intentional and neither do you. It certainly looked intentional. But as I’ve stated before, in my own personal experience I’ve been in certain situations where I played in a manner that have been considered “dirty”. In none of those cases did I want to hurt someone. In those cases I just wanted to send a message.

    I think that’s what Gerald was planning on doing when he went up in the air – which coincdentally, was the same time that Hansboro went up in the air. (It wasn’t in slow motion like you seem to think.)

    Personally I think he may have decided to let his mo carry part of his body towards Hansboro – but I have no evidence of that – and neither do you.

    These things happen in sports – especially when folks get frustrated. Hodge elbowed Blake in the head after Blake put a cheap shot in on him. Stackhouse intentionally stepped on Feggins (you never read about that little act do you?) It is part of the game. Emotions run high, young men do things they wouldn’t normally do out of frustration and adrenaline…This takes place in a calderon of emotion most of us can’t relate to.

    I said earlier in the year that I thought Hansboro was heading for a meltdown. I think this incident will either make him harness his emotions a little better or will make him more aggressive. He certainly does have a bullseye on his chest – and this incident won’t do anything to change.

    Hopefully, what will come away from this is how officials control the game. Of course, I am not sure what happened here wouldn’t have happened any way. But I do know this, when you think someone is getting away w/ being too physical, that can only add to your frustration.

    Finally, I don’t want to excuse his actions – I’ve stated before that 2 wrongs don’t make a right. If it was wrong for Hansboro to be in there playing hard, it was wrong for Henderson to employ the hard foul. You have to be responsible for your actions- and well, part of the risk of the hard foul is that things can go really wrong. It could have been worse – this could have been an eye or a temple.

  25. gumbydammit 03/06/2007 at 1:20 AM #

    The day that State fans rush to a Tarhole’s defense like they have here for Hasbro (ESPECIALLY for Hasbro) is a sad, sad day indeed. Or are they closet ‘holes?

    As for you that have said that GH’s foul was “absolutely, without a doubt, clearly, obviously, etc. flagrant, intentional, worthy of death penalty, blah blah”, the only absolute thing revealed there is that you are an idiot. There is NOTHING definitive in the videos. The only definitives are in your opinions, and a definitive opinion and 2 cents won’t buy you jack squat.

Leave a Reply