Let's just cut to the chase, douggie

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.   

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.

Well, like I said, the terminology ("Intentional" vs "Flagrant") has changed, but the penalty has not.  And a lot of that is up to the descretion of the officials, as they can't possibly detail every single foul that could be committed.  If you want to argue that Leatner's "stomp" was initiating a fight, then it would be an ejection, now or then.  If you want to say that it was just excessive contact (a more realistic stance, in my opinion) then it would be an intentional/flagrant then or now.

Of course, wondering about the penalty (much like Spike) COMPLETELY misses the point, as no one is arguing about the punishment.  The point is there was a rule, and it was broken, and Spike is bragging about it.

Those three things are indisputable.

 

This message has been removed by the administrator.

Haha wow my iq is that low and yet I'm in the same socioeconomic class as you. Gotta love America!!

The wonders of socialism.

And don't pretend to know what socioeconomical class I'm in.  You know nothing about me. 

This message has been removed by the administrator.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

Well Spike, the point wasn NOT if Leattner was sufficiently punished.  The point was that he broke a rule.  The punishment has nothing to do with my point.  And we all agree that he broke a rule.

Leattner broke a rule.
You continue to flaunt it.
And you're a huge hypocrite for doing so.

And way to fail at basic math too, Spike.  The timeline was to show rule changes SINCE that game was played.  Rule changes for the 1991-1992 season would have been PRIOR to the game.

Big surprise.  Spike Fails. 

This message has been removed by the administrator.

And way to fail at basic math too Chester.

If the rule hasn't chaged SINCE the infraction (which is what my timeline showed) then it is THE SAME NOW AS IT WAS THEN (Which is what you asked, no?)

You guy's really are bad at this.

I mean, it's pretty obvious from your posts that you're teetering on illiterate but I would have though you could at least count past 10.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

I see you never post past midnight except on the weekends.  Mom not let you stay up that late on a school night?

This message has been removed by the administrator.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

 

Mom not let you stay up that late on a school night?

You really think Tyson has, or is getting, an education?  Maybe he's going to Douggie's alma mater, Hamburger U.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

This message has been removed by the administrator.

This thread is STILL going?

Damn!!

At least Tyson will be shelved for a while. The new CBS rules state that when someone has 3 posts removed by the admins, then they are subjected to a "time out". But, I'm sure Tyson knows all about time outs.......after all, 6 yr olds get them on a regular basis from their first grade teachers. Douggie, on the other hand, enjoys giving "time outs" to little boys.