If you thought three weeks was enough time to put "The Foul" to rest, you were wrong. [UNNAMED ANALYST] continues his idiotic assertion that the referees got the call wrong when they went to the went to the replay to ascertain whether Gerald Henderson's foul on Tyler Hansbrough was worthy of ejection.
From the N&O:
"It was the wrong call and it was a bad call," Packer said Thursday as he watched the Tar Heels prepare for tonight's NCAA Tournament third-round game against Southern California.
Officials Karl Hess, Les Jones and Jamie Luckie made a controversial ruling in the waning seconds of North Carolina's 86-72 win, after Hansbrough was knocked down and then got up with blood spewing out of his broken nose.
After spending several minutes reviewing the video, the officials ejected Henderson, who was subjected to a mandatory one-game suspension and sat out Duke's loss to N.C. State in the first round of the ACC Tournament. Hansbrough was forced to wear a protective mask that hampered his play for the next four games.
The emotions on the opposing teams have cooled, but not among the fans. And there, Packer is squarely at ground zero. During CBS television's game coverage, Packer quickly sized up Henderson's hit as unintentional and reiterated his point several times as the officials reviewed the play.
"If that foul was really that awful, there shouldn't have been any need at all for a TV review," Packer said Thursday. "There were six officiating eyes on that play. They should have known what the situation was the second they saw it. If the ruling had been made right away that Henderson's foul was flagrant and instigating a fight, I could understand. But they had to go over and over it, and then they got it wrong."
Okay, let me explain this again, "and I will use small words so that you'll be sure to understand you warthog-faced buffoon."
The first point is this: The referees did immediately call it an intentional foul. [UNNAMED ANALYST] has now based his whole house of cards on the premise that the referees should have made the call on the spot and not used the review process to eject Henderson. What [UNNAMED ANALYST] does not seem to know or care to know is that according to the WTVD-11 camera feed(which was shot from the right baseline on the opposite side than the CBS cameras) showed is that as soon as Hansbrough went down one of the referees came in from his outside position to confer with another referee in the lane and then they immediately signaled intentional foul.
So to assert the referees did not make an immediate signal that the foul was over the line is patently false. I can only assume that the reason [UNNAMED ANALYST] did not see it is because the CBS replays focus on Hansbrough and [UNNAMED ANALYST] was sitting on the opposite side where his view would have been obscured by the group of players standing in the lane.
The second point is based on the fact the foul was indeed called an intentional foul from the beginning, the purpose the referees had for going to the replay was to determine if the action was a combative action. [UNNAMED ANALYST] is attempting to assert that the referees were trying to convert a common foul into an intentional/flagrant foul. What the referees were actually going was attempting to determine if the intentional foul committed was worthy of ejection or not. In other words they needed to determine if (1) there was any intent to injure, (2) if Henderson struck Hansbrough with a closed fist and (3) whether he acted in a reckless manner. Obviously one and two were proven not to be the case but three was the clincher. [UNNAMED ANALYST] maintains that if the foul was so egregious then they should be able to make the call without the replay. I would argue that the logic is reversed. Because the action was so violent in nature, the referees have no choice but to review the play to see if there was a offense worthy of ejection. The foul happened quickly and you cannot be sure if the referees could see everything about the way Henderson struck Hansbrough.
Let me put it another way. Let's assume for a moment that Henderson had struck Hansbrough with a close fist but because of the angles and the speed of the play the refs did not see it. Should Henderson get a free ride from punching another player because [UNNAMED ANALYST] wants the referees to call everything on the spot? Of course not. This is a worse justification than the original premise that Henderson was not acting with an intent to injure. The bottom line is that Henderson was reckless and the foul was a dangerous action on his part. It was a mistake and it was punished in a manner which 98% of the sane people on the planet who saw the play have agreed with. The only ones that have not are [UNNAMED ANALYST] and a small grouping of anti-UNC people.
Anyway, I also came to the stark realization that the reason the N&O included [UNNAMED ANALYST] in the article is because he is in New Jersey. I am beginning to wonder which is more annoying: The radio being several seconds ahead of the TV or listening to [UNNAMED ANALYST].