Buddy suspended for Duke

[Orangezoo]

People should not just watch the highlight ESPN show later but also five seconds earlier leading to the incident. I have DVR the game. Buddy just reacted to the dirty push.

He got aggressively boxed out but there was no dirty push before that or any earlier posession.

 

[rrlbees]

Two things. (1) I have a feeling that had Buddy been ejected during the game there’d be a lot of the same people here kvetching that’s he was unfairly tossed. (2) It’s quite likely he’d get a suspension even if he had been tossed. Punching has become the ultimate sin in basketball, for whatever reason.

I think it would have come down to if they considered it fighting. Fighting they give an automatic 1 game. Otherwise there’s no requirement they give any suspension.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Which, in athletics, means absolutely nothing.

So what? Mother Theresa would have been suspended if she did what Buddy did.

Of course, she's not nearly the shooter from 3 Buddy is, granted.

You know this for certain?

 

[djcon57]

Arguing whether it was legit vs what we wanted is two very different things. If you think the preference here is he gets suspended then you are mistaken.

I'm frustrated that a key player made such a bone headed play at a critical time and that at a point in the game where we had a large advantage. Over the years plenty of times we have had different challenges due to poor decisions. So I'm not having my fan/alum card challenged over not being irrationally against the logic of a decision that isn't without merit.

Personally with what weve seen in this world the last whatever years, I’m just strongly against debating reality even if it affects what I want or like.

he punched him. It happened. Want to debate the punishment, cool. Want to blame the refs for not doing it during they game, cool. But I hate what Jim said and posters suggesting it didn’t happen.

 

[llandz]

Buddy was wrong, plain and simple. Guess who also was wrong, the officials. One will be there tomorrow, and one will not. I have to say, before hearing what Bilas had to say, I thought the suspension was warranted and fair. But Bilas lays out the facts very well along with an argument about the rules. If the ACC is changing the rules, that is not ok. Also, no one asked the ACC to review this other than the ESPN desk crew; not the player, not the Fl. St. coach and not the school. Also I listened to the video from the Fl St. player, and he also is pretty compelling in stating that this was basically a nothing, and that he has been hit much harder so many more times. He does not think this warrants a suspension either. In a court of law, he would be listened to. So it appears the ACC has just gone off on their own little tangent because a couple of ESPN announcers made this a really big deal right after the game. If they had done their due diligence and talked to the "offended victim" and the Fl. St. coach, then maybe they would have looked at this a bit differently.

 

[djcon57]

If the officials reviewed it and assessed an -2 I would have been annoyed but moved on. The rules allow for that interpretation.

There is nothing about the rules that allow the conference to retroactively assign that action a -2 grade. It just doesn't exist.

Based on that, Syracuse absolutely should appeal the decision, and close enough to game time tomorrow that the appeal cannot be judged until after the game. I don't think they WILL, but they should.

Can we appeal Buddy's Suspension?

My understanding is we can appeal and Buddy would be allowed to play WHILE the case is under appeal. Trying to find the exact governing rules. Anyone out there?

syracusefan.com

 

[AZOrange]

A comical end to a comical season

 

[Day2]

I will leave

Promise?

 

[Day2]

I am so glad we both think they’re idiots.

FYI , most of my comments are silly. I have no idea what I’m talking about 90% of the time

In other words, Vegas thinks we have a better shot at winning than you have an idea what you’re talking about.

 

[SUFan44]

 

[AZOrange]

What in God’s name is going on. Did she mean to write “most likely over”? Winning tomorrow wouldn’t even be in the top 10 upsets of the college season all year. I’m just dumbfounded at people thinking we’re playing the Bucks tomorrow. It’s about 5-7% that we win tomorrow. The “zero chance” people are embarrassing themselves.

Dude….

 

[Day2]

You know this for certain?

She was more of a post player.

 

[Sherman20]

Arguing whether it was legit vs what we wanted is two very different things. If you think the preference here is he gets suspended then you are mistaken.

I'm frustrated that a key player made such a bone headed play at a critical time and that at a point in the game where we had a large advantage. Over the years plenty of times we have had different challenges due to poor decisions. So I'm not having my fan/alum card challenged over not being irrationally against the logic of a decision that isn't without merit.

Agreed. But I’m with Bilas on this. Buddy shouldn’t be suspended. Should have been called in game by the refs. The ACC coming in after the fact isn’t right.

 

[AZOrange]

In other words, Vegas thinks we have a better shot at winning than you have an idea what you’re talking about.

I mean I just don’t see how Duke doesn’t win by 25 plus. We lost by that a week ago with Buddy and Benny. Now we are down to 6 guys. There is nothing to see here

 

[AZOrange]

Agreed. But I’m with Bilas on this. Buddy shouldn’t be suspended. Should have been called in game by the refs. The ACC coming in after the fact isn’t right.

That’s silly. The guy threw a punch in a game.

 

[Day2]

I mean I just don’t see how Duke doesn’t win by 25 plus. We lost by that a week ago with Buddy and Benny. Now we are down to 6 guys. There is nothing to see here

Did you see my prediction?

 

[SWC75]

I guess JB has really mellowed out about punches since the days of Michael Graham.

JB was

- defending his son, which is understandable

- defending his player, which he has always done when someone else is criticizing them

- defending his team, making a case for why the decision should be to their benefit, which he has also always done. A coach is part defense attorney.

Still, Buddy acknowledged he was in the wrong and JB really needs to do the same, now that the decision is made.

 

[Day2]

I’m just going to assume that everyone saying Buddy shouldn’t have been suspended also didn’t think Howard should be suspended and/or fired. I mean, there’s no reason for anyone to go through that thread and compare notes, is there?

 

[SWC75]

They look better than Florida State did.

 

[Chalupa_24]

No. It isn't. It's sad. It's too bad. but, how would they justify not suspending him.

You honestly think buddy intentionally punched him?

 

[SWC75]

This reminds me of when Walt Sweeney creamed the Notre Dame kicker and holder in 1961 and the argument was about whether another play should have bene granted or whether the game ended on that play. That debate should not obscure the fact that there was an obvious violation.

 

[Chalupa_24]

Who asked this….?

 

[Chalupa_24]

And this?

 

[Sherman20]

Coleman, Seikaly and Brower going ham on Cornell…those are “throwing” punches. So much pearl clutching in this thread. Yes, he should have gotten a flagrant foul in game and probably been ejected. But the refs failed to call it or review the play afterwards. You disagree with Bilas? He thinks Buddy shouldn’t be suspended, and neither do I. ESPN playing that clip over and over and Greenberg and Ellis immediately advocating for a suspension made this a thing.

That’s silly. The guy threw a punch in a game.

 

[AZOrange]

Coleman, Seikaly and Brower going ham on Cornell…those are “throwing” punches. So much pearl clutching in this thread. Yes, he should have gotten a flagrant foul in game and probably been ejected. But the refs failed to call it or review the play afterwards. You disagree with Bilas? He thinks Buddy shouldn’t be suspended and neither do I.

Yes that’s silly. Clips from 35 years ago are
Meaningless. Totally different game now