This message has been removed by the administrator.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

What was Duke's record last season Paul? A losing record?

Did Kentucky play in the NIT the year we lost to Laettner?  No.

Did Duke have a losing record in 1994-95?  Yes.

Laettner over-reacted for getting undercut by Timberlake kid ande "pretended" to stomp his chest thus receiving a Technical Foul

Congratulations, Dougie!
There are two parts of your statement which are accurate:
Yes, Laettner over-reacted, and yes, he received a Technical.

However, he did not pretend to stomp Timberlake, Laettner has admitted he, in fact, actually did stomp him...no pretending about it.
Furthermore, it had nothing to do with anything Timberlake did, nor any undercutting of the legs.
Laettner has stated he was retaliating for a play that happened during the possession before, wherein he was shoved into the basket stanchion by another Kentucky player whom he mistakenly thought was Timerlake.

Don't let facts, nor Laettner's own words, get in your way, though, Dougie.
That wouldn't be your style.

Yes, Spike, Timberlake broke rules too.  the difference is you don't see UK fans bragging about it.

Fact:  The NCAA has rules that cover things like stomping on a player, or even acting like you wtomp on another player.
Fact:  Christian Leatner broke those rules.
Fact:  You constantly flaunt that rule breaking as if it is a good thing.

Split the hairs however you want Spkie.  Those are the facts. 

Although Laettner acknowledged stepping on Timberlake's chest on purpose after getting fouled going up for a layup, the ex-Duke star explained he did it in retaliation for a play that happened the previous possession. Kentucky's Richie Farmer apparently had shoved Laettner face first into the basket stanchion on the other end of the floor, but at the time Laettner thought it was Timberlake who had delivered the push.

"I made a mistake and I thought it was Timberlake, so when Timberlake was underneath me 30 seconds later or a minute later, I had a bad reaction," Laettner said. "It was just from the emotion of the game. There was maybe too much adrenaline flowing, but it was a big mistake."

From a recent article shortly before Laettner's appearance at Rupp Arena this year.... Sure sounds like Laettner stepped on Timberlake's chest on purpose... Hahahahahahahahaha!! Again, douggie has been proven wrong.

DOUGGIE = EPIC FAIL 

Laettner and Farmer could end up being cellmates.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

Who said anything about being ejected, Spike?  Leatner stomped on an opposing player.  That's against the rules.  It doesn't matter if he was given a personal foul, a technical foul, ejected, or given a medal.  It's against the rules.

And you continue to brag about it.  Stay classy Duke bandwagon fans.  Stay classy. 

Rule 10 Section 5 Article 1

A player or substitute committing an unsportsmanlike act including,
but not limited to, the following:

D. Contacting an opponent, while the ball is dead, in an unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive manner.
E. Flagrantly (severe or extreme) contacting an opponent while the ball is dead.  

PENALTY: Two free throws shall be awarded to any member of the offended team. No free throws shall be awarded for a double or offsetting technical foul. Counts toward the team-foul total. Applies toward disqualification and ejection (Art. 1.a through d). Flagrant technical foul(s) (Art. 1.e through i) are non-applicable toward disqualification since they lead to automatic ejection. An assessed technical foul that cannot be charged to an individual shall be charged to the head coach (ex. Art. 1.g).

There's your rules.  Leatner, a Duke player, broke them.  

And Spike is bragging about it.  Classy. 

This message has been removed by the administrator.

Wording has changed since 1992 (ie "Intentional" vs "Flagrant") but no, it wasn't legal to step on, stomp on, players or otherwise contact a player in an unnecessary manner in 1992, you dolt.

That's why he was called for a foul, or maybe you didn't see that in the box score.   

Here's your rule changes since 1992.

1992-93

• Unsporting technical fouls, in addition to contact technical fouls, counted toward the five fouls for player disqualii cation and toward the team fouls in reaching bonus free-throw situations.

1993-94

• The shot clock was reduced from 45 seconds to 35. The team in control of the ball had to shoot for a goal within 35 seconds after it attained team control.
• A foul was ruled intentional if, while playing the ball, a player caused excessive contact with an opponent.
• The game clock was stopped after successful field goals in the last minute of the game and the last minute of any overtime period with no substitution allowed.
• The five-second dribbling violation when closely guarded was eliminated.
• The rule concerning the use of profanity was expanded to include abusive and obscene language in an ef ort to curtail verbal misconduct by players and coaches.

1994-95

• The inner circle at midcourt was eliminated.
• Scoring was restricted to a tap-in when three-tenths (.3) of a second or less remained on the game clock or shot clock.
• The fighting and suspension rules were expanded to include coaches and team personnel.

1995-96

• All unsporting technical fouls charged to anyone on the bench counted toward the team foul total.
• Teams were allowed one 20-second timeout per half. This was an experimental rule in the 1994-95 season.

1996-97

• Teams had to warm up and shoot at the end of the court farthest from their own bench for the first half. Previously, teams had the choice of baskets in the first half.
• In games not involving commercial electronic media, teams were entitled to four full-length timeouts and two 20-second timeouts per game. In games involving commercial electronic media, teams were entitled to two full-length timeouts and three 20-second timeouts per game.

1997-98

• The five-second dribbling violation when closely guarded was reinstated.
• Timeout requests could be made by a player on the court or by the head coach.

1998-99

• In a held-ball situation initiated by the defense, the ball would be awarded to the defensive team. Previously, possession was awarded by the direction of the possession arrow.

1999-2000

• Held-ball change from previous season rescinded.
• Twenty-second timeouts increased to 30 seconds in length. New electronic-media timeout format adopted.
• Uniform numbers one and two were permitted.
• During the season, the rules committee made a rule that required the official to look at the courtside monitor to determine if a potential gamewinning shot in the last second of the game or overtime would count.

2000-01

• Technical fouls were divided into direct (two-shot penalty) and indirect (one-shot penalty) with the ball returned to the point of interruption.
• Number of players permitted on free-throw lane reduced from eight to six.

2001-02

• Both direct and indirect technical fouls were penalized by two shots and returned to the point of interruption.
• Officials could check an official courtside monitor to determine if a try was a three- or two-point attempt, regardless of whether the try was successful.

2002-03

• Composite ball could be used without mutual consent of coaches.
• Two free-throw lane spaces closest to the free-thrower would remain unoccupied.
• No free throws were awarded to the of ended team in bonus for personal fouls committed by a team while in team control or in possession of the ball during a throw-in (team-control foul).
• For Division I, shot clocks had to be mounted and recessed on the backboard, red warning light had to be added and game clock had to show a tenth-of-a-second display. 

2003-04

• Officials could consult a courtside monitor at the end of either half or any extra period to determine: (1) if a field-goal try beat the horn; (2) whether a shot-clock violation at the end of the first half beat the horn; or (3) whether a shot-clock violation that would determine the outcome of a game beat the horn. The officials also could use a courtside monitor to correct a timer’s mistake or to determine if the game clock or shot clock expired at or near the end of a period.
• A team would have control when a player of that team had disposal of the ball for a throw-in.
• For Division II, shot clocks were recessed and mounted. 

2005-06

• Expanding on the rule from two seasons before, officials who consult a courtside monitor at the end of either half or any extra period could correct the oi cial game time if needed and/or determine whether a foul was committed before time expired. Officials could also consult a courtside monitor any time during the game to correct a timer's mistake.
• The time allowed to replace a disqualii ed player was reduced from 30 to 20 seconds, and the warning signal was sounded five seconds before the expiration of the time limit.
• Violations when the ball had been intentionally kicked no longer resulted in the reset of the shot clock to 35 seconds. When the violation occurred with 15 or fewer seconds remaining, the shot clock was reset to 15 seconds. Otherwise, when the violation occurred with more than 15 seconds remaining, there was no reset of the shot clock.

2006-07

• A timeout would not be recognized when an airborne player’s momentum carried him either out-of-bounds or into the backcourt.

2007-08

• During free throws, eliminated the first lane space nearest the basket on each side of the lane and used the second, third and fourth lane space on each side as an alignment for free throws.
• Use of a courtside monitor was allowed for determining whether a flagrant foul occurred or to assess the situation during a fight.

2008-09

• The three-point line was extended to 20 feet 9 inches.
• When the entire ball is above the level of the ring during a field-goal try and contacts the backboard, it is considered to be on its downward flight. In such a case, it is goaltending when that ball is touched by a player.

2009-10

• Division II and III institutions are required to have a game clock with a tenth-of-a-second display, a red light or LED lights, and shot clocks mounted on the backboard.
• Expanding on the rule from two seasons before, when an oi cial uses a courtside monitor to determine whether a flagrant foul occurred, if it is determined that a flagrant foul did not occur but an intentional personal foul or a contact technical foul did occur, those fouls shall be penalized accordingly. However, no other infractions may be penalized.
• The new “contact technical foul” occurs when the ball is dead and involves contact that is unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive.
• When a player is injured and is unable to attempt his free throw(s), the coach from the opposing team shall select one of the four remaining players on the court to attempt the free throw(s). When the foul is intentional or flagrant, the injured player’s coach shall select any player or team member to shoot the free throw(s).
• In a charging/blocking foul situation, a blocking foul will automatically be called on the secondary defender if the defender is positioned under the basket.

2010-11

• Along with the common foul or flagrant foul of the past, officials now had a third option of calling an intentional foul when contact was made by swinging elbows.

2011-12

• A three-foot arc was added to the court to help referees determine automatic block fouls of secondary defenders standing within the arc during a charging/blocking foul situation. 

...so yeah.  Still against the rules... even in 1992.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

Don't apologize for asking the question.  Apologize for being so stupid as to think it was within the rules to step on people 20 years ago.  

Asking questions is encourgaed.  That's why I answered it.  Being stupid is where you ran afoul. 

Don't get me wrong, Chester.  I know Spike doesn't seem to think there was anything wrong with it (I guess in his mind anything goes during a game as long as you don't get ejected) but the rules are prety clear on the matter.  

 

This message has been removed by the administrator.

You suggested it might have been okay to stomp on someone's chest back then when you queried about the rule change.  

If it's against the rules now, and the rule changed since the incident that would imply that it was okay then.

It's simple deductive reasoning, but somehow, I'm not surprised that a simple concept like that would escape someone so renowned on here for his keen wit and sharp intellect.

But like I said, questions are encouraged.  (hell, just asked Spike.  He asked the same question on here at least a half dozen times, and everyone answered it, but he just kept'a askin)  It's stupidity that's frowned upon.

you know what... maybe I was a little out of line though...  Tyson, are you still a teenager?  If you're still a teenager and just too damn young to remember basketball 20 years ago, I can give you a pass.  If you never actually got to see basketball that long ago I guess I can understand thinking that it was okay to stomp on people.

However if you're a grown ass man and still asked that question, then you're more stupid than I ever gave you credit for.  I can only guess at this point that you're about 2 IQ points away from having to remind yourself to breathe. 

This message has been removed by the administrator.