From a Kentucky point of view. Brings back nice memories:
http://www.aseaofblue.com/story/2007/8/18/112331/599
Doesn't seem to be entirely accurate, because I remember Laettner getting a foul for stepping on the Kentucky player, but reading the story still makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
Not bad. More objective than much of what we see from the Big Blue fan base and some genuine insights into the UK mindset. I was especially impressed by the author's recognition that Laettner's "stomp" was nothing of the sort, although I have never understood why anyone would think it warranted an ejection. A technical foul was called, btw, and was an appropriate punishment.
Would it be churlish of me to point out that the author consistently misspelled the last name of the story's arch-villain? Maybe it a Voldemort thing. The name that dare not be spelled correctly.
I was somewhat sympathetic towards the guy until I read his second follow-up. We Duke fans are called to account yet again for thinking that the technical foul called at the time was enough. Jerk.
I know it must be hell to have to watch that Laettner shot so much, as a Boston Red Sox fan the Buckner play used to feel like a permanent wound but 2004 changed that. One of my sincerest hopes after '04 was that I wouldn't ever have to see that highlight again, well, the Sox put it in the opening montage of their World Series DVD set. Gee, thanks guys, but still most of the sting is gone. Kentucky has won 2 NCs since that game, two! Get over it!
The Laettner shot is such a great moment because it shows an athlete at the top of his game coming through in the clutch. He did it. It's not the other team winning because he failed. That's the biggest contrast to the Buckner play, nobody failed in that game, we just had the ball last. (Grant Hill gets a lot less credit for that nearly perfect pass, he came through too.)
One last thing that never gets mentioned, but does anyone else think that Laettner was actually fouled on the inbound pass? Wonder how pointing that out would go over in Big Blue Nation (nation? how about state?) Would it have been easier to lose that game with Laettner hitting two from the free throw line? Anybody want to ask them?
"One last thing that never gets mentioned, but does anyone else think that Laettner was actually fouled on the inbound pass? Wonder how pointing that out would go over in Big Blue Nation (nation? how about state?) Would it have been easier to lose that game with Laettner hitting two from the free throw line? Anybody want to ask them?"
I dunno. Honestly I don't think this point has much merit. Most end-game situations today are brutal slugfests as defenses dare officials to call fouls with games on the line. Think of Boozer's attempted put-back after Williams missed the foul shot in 2002 or a hundred other last second hack jobs you see in the NBA. Reggie Miller brutally pushed off Michael Jordan to actually hit a game winner in the year of Jordan's final run to the title. It was sweet to see it happen to Jordan, but Miller should've been called for the offensive foul. It what way does the physicality now pervasive in college and pro basketball enhance the game? I just don't see it. "Let the game be decided by the players" is the now-unwritten rule that denies the fans of even more glorious finishes. In a way Laettner's shot was a credit to Phelphrey who contested Laettner on the pass, but backed away when Laettner had won the jump and clearly had the advantage. I didn't see any foul on that pass other than incidental contact.
Last edited by CameronBlue; 08-19-2007 at 11:32 AM.
As an aside, I've been having fun with the locals who say that I only like Pelphrey as the Hogs' new basketball coach because Laettner was able to hit the shot over him. My response has been, "Yeah, maybe he SHOULD get someone else to coach defense..."Originally Posted by CameronBlue
LOL "The Shot" will always be the final word when the trash starts flying between Duke and UK fans. If there's a standard measure of human bloodlust it's "The Shot". Invoking one utterance is the spear to the soft milky white underbelly of UK fandom. It's visceral, impervious to logical retort, and always, always fatal. How it's used defines our empathy and our humanity.
If only UK fans were human.....
The extent to which this game has come to be at the core of what it means to be a UK fan is hard to fathom until you've actually seen it in action.
Two seasons ago, the Duke women's team played in the holiday tournament in San Diego, and I drove down to see them play St. John's on the first night. It was apparent in the first four minutes that there was a huge disparity in talent between the teams, and that the final margin of victory would be whatever Coach G wanted it to be. So the Duke fans in attendance went into relaxed, blowout mode, and the rest of the crowd pretty much tuned out, waiting to see the host USD Toreros in the second game.
All, that is, except for one group of about 15 teenage girls, high up in the stands on the side of Jenny Craig Pavilion opposite the benches, who continued to cheer vociferously for St. John's and boo Duke at every opportunity.
It wasn't until a trip to the concession stand at halftime that I was able to figure it out.
It was a girls' high school team from Kentucky, in town to play in the big HS tournament that runs alongside the college tournament. None of those girls could have been more than five years old in 1992, and most were probably not fully potty-trained when Laettner did his thing. Yet they have absorbed the Duke-is-evil meme as thoroughly as the Ten Commandments and the Pledge of Allegiance.
Crazy.
I hate Kentucky. Just wanted to throw that out there.
Similarly, I had a friend who was maybe eight when The Game was played, yet was so full of bitterness about everything Duke that I couldn't say a single thing Duke-related without him picking a fight with me over it. Needless to say, we are no longer friends. Not all UK fans are like this, but enough that I'm continually stunned by it; UK has the winningest program in college basketball, has done amazing things since that game, yet they won't get over it. They see it as a point of pride that they've been holding this grudge for all these years, but honestly, IMO, it just makes them look like p***y whiny losers.
The fact that fans of one of the sleaziest programs in CBB history act as if Laettner's love tap is the epitome of bad sportsmanship is comical. These people will defend scandals and disgraceful actions that have been the hallmark of their program for 50 years until they're blue in the face, but regard a toe-tap in a rough game as the downfall of all that is good in sports. What a crew of cretins.
Ok can I give one to your mother or grandmother when they are on the ground?
It was a ugly foul and if I were a Duke fan I would be embarassed for the program that a player did that nonsense in a big game.
It was a great game and as a Kentucky fan it was the worst of times and best times as that night we realized that we were back on the national stage.
Calling it a "love tap" is obviously being perjorative and trying to get under UK fans' skin. It was unsportsmanlike, and it was stupid.
However, I disagree with the UK perspective that it was an outrageous act of violence and it warranted ejection. It warranted a technical foul, and one was assessed, so in my opinion justice was served. This is not Kermit Washington. If Laettner had intended to physically harm Timberlake, he would have. He didn't. Things get chippy in close basketball games. This is a prime example. There are numerous incidents where Duke players have been on the receiving end of such acts too (e.g. Laettner's head getting shoved to the court against UCONN). Every shove, elbow, or taunt does not require ejection. There's a judgement call to be made, and the call that was made in this game was fair in my opinion.
For another point of view: if UK had won the game, would anyone be talking about the stomp?
RP,
Was it embarrassing to me as a Duke fan that Laettner lost his poise and stepped on Timberlake's chest in retaliation for the shoving Laettner himself took under the basket at the other end of the court? Yes. And I think it was entirely appropriate that Laettner was assessed a technical foul for his transgression, and went to the bench where he was met by an angry Coach K getting in his face. But by the same token, don't you think Kentucky fans should be a little embarrassed by the fact that their players engaged in the unsportsmanlike tactics that prompted Laettner to lose his poise--tactics that were, judging by Aminu's smile to the ref as he immediately lept to his feet, deliberately designed to evoke such a reaction from Laettner (and that were, lest it be overlooked, committed with complete impunity).
Evidently, some Kentucky fans feel that Laettner should have been ejected, and that if he had, the Wildcats would likely have won the game. Now I ask you: Would you be proud of your team for having won the game by using unsportsmanlike tactics to goad the opponent's star player into a reaction that resulted in his ejection? In my judgment, that would be just a small step short of intentionally injuring an opposing player to give your team an unfair advantage.
Whether you call it a "stomp" or a "tap" or whatever, the undeniable fact is that Laettner did not injure Timberlake in the least. Ultimately, Kentucky got some net benefit by getting a technical foul called on Laettner and Duke--and who knows if the game would have even gone to overtime without it. If Laettner had been ejected, I believe a Kentucky victory would forever have been tainted, because there would have been considerably more focus on the preceding exchanges that provoked Laettner's transgression.
To his credit, Laettner regained his composure and played like the senior star he was for the rest of the game. To their credit, Kentucky's kids showed enormous pride and guts and matched Duke's performance play-for-play until the final buzzer, which just happened to sound after Duke got the last shot. By general consensus, it was the greatest college basketball game ever played. Both teams, as well as the players and coaches, achieved a measure of sports immortality merely by having participated in the event. Both coaches exhibited a degree of dignity and respect for the game in the aftermath that should be held up as a model for others. IMO, the most embarrassing thing about the game is the fact that some Kentucky fans still seem to determined to denigrate it by insisting that their team was "robbed" because it didn't have a chance to play the last part of the game against a Duke team handicapped by the loss of its star player.
That about a minute earlier in action Lattener was pushed out of bounds by Timberlake after Timberlake had been pushed into himself by others (both Kentucky and Duke players). Then Timberlake got up and yelled at Lattener to get up and go. At that point of the game Kentucky was trying to speed up the tempo to wear Duke down. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't. I think Timberlake got up laughing cause he knew that Duke drew a technical and he wasn't going to get into the tit for tat game.
My compliments to Stray Gator for a factual, level-headed assessment of this game.
Fond memories. I was there (I really was). What everyone overlooks is that Richie Farmer MISSED the first technical. Had he made it, who knows if we would have had such a thrilling overtime. I just went back to the tape. Farmer did shove Laettner a few plays before--and it wasn't incidental contact. His arms were extended and it looked like one elbow was locked. But shortly thereafter, and before the Timberlake play, Laettner cleared out Farmer, so they were even. Maybe if something had been called on those plays the Timberlake play wouldn't have happened. It was a physical game, and Laettner certainly was physical at that point.
is that the author forgot that Laettner was penalized for the tap.
I wonder how many other Kentucky fans "know" that Laettner was not penalized. Is that now part of the lore? This was a big moment in the biggest game in the author's life and he is wrong about a basic fact.
SoCal
It's definitely not the first time I've seen it happen. Seems to be a far-too-frequent bout of forgetfulness (selective memory?) to me.
I'm not all that impressed, mainly because the author apparently didn't take the time to do some basic fact-checking. First, he originally said that Laettner didn't receive any penalty for stepping on Timberlake, and only corrected his error after our own Jim Sumner pointed it out. Even after that, he still left up the inaccurate text, but with a "strikethrough" line through it. It's still perfectly legible, though. Why keep it up at all, when it's clearly wrong?
Second, he said that the Timberlake incident occurred late in the first half. It didn't. It occurred around midway through the second half, and it didn't occur when Laettner and Timberlake were "fighting for a rebound." Timberlake fouled Laettner as he was shooting. No foul was called on Laettner for the initial contact (as the author asserted), though Laettner did receive a technical foul for stepping on Timberlake after the fact. Also, if memory serves me correctly, Timberlake didn't get any free throws out of the exchange. Laettner got two free throws because of Timberlake's foul (he made both, of course), and I think Richie Farmer took the technical foul free throws for Kentucky.
The author also said that Kentucky was down 12 at "the last TV timeout of the second half." This is almost certainly wrong, as the last TV timeout would've come somewhere in the last four minutes of the half. Duke built its 12-point lead (its biggest of the game) much earlier, though -- I want to say it occurred around the nine or ten minute mark (the author does say Duke led by 12 with around 11:00 left, which sounds about right). But Kentucky chipped away at that lead over several minutes, and the game would have been closer by the time it was under four minutes left in regulation. It's possible that the last TV timeout coincided with a timeout called by one of the two teams, so the author might be recalling an earlier TV timeout as the last "real" TV timeout of the game. At the very least, though, his description is confusing, if not just plain wrong.
This is just off the top of my head. I probably could find more mistakes by the author if I actually watched a tape of the game -- something that the author apparently didn't do before writing the article.
Last edited by Tom B.; 08-20-2007 at 05:33 PM.
In addition to Tom B.'s post above, I'd like to add that Laettner's action can likely be attributed as retaliation. Laettner hit the ground after he was shoved in the back on a rebound by Richie Farmer several plays before the "stomp". Timberlake was in the vicinity when he was shoved and could have been mistaken by Laettner as the one pushing him since Timberlake was guarding him.
The "stomp" as retaliation has been brought up here before, but it's rarely recognized by UK fans.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
