Sally Jenkins Wash Post Column | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Sally Jenkins Wash Post Column

Status
Not open for further replies.
CL82 said:
When the notoriously blunt and hard-mouthed Auriemma went at her in the locker room, she would lift her large brown bird eyes to the ceiling, trying to control her tears.

Large brown bird eyes? Really? Sounds like a novel that would have Fabio on the cover.

This was my impression exactly! Harlequin much?
Expand ...
 
vtcwbuff said:
Milford - When you get a chance watch the replay. It was a no call because none of the refs saw the foul committed. They are all visible on screen and they were all watching the play unfold after the pass was made. Mattingly probably had the best view of the play but she turned to watch the ball. I don't think anyone but Walz realized that Smith was on the floor and even he turned to watch the play.

I don't believe it was an act - But even if it was, Smith got smacked in the face with an elbow.

Whenever I see a play like this I try to take a deep breath and try to see the play as if the teams were reversed. Had it been a UConn player that got hit like that we all would have been screaming about it.
Expand ...
Thanks. From my angle and distance in the arena, I wasn't sure. I didn't see CD check on her, but if she did, that clearly suggests contact. I though Smith was in her space.
 
No question there was contact and the CD apologized after the play. I did not see it as intentional in anyway beyond CD trying to clear some space and I certainly do not believe she had any intention of connecting with another players head.
As far as the call - the ref's have only two choices when elbow makes contact with head or neck - F1 and F2 with F2 including intent - they made the right call flagrant 1.
 
vtcwbuff said:
I didn't think there was contact until Doty came over and apologised. Why would she do that if she had not hit Smith? However, on slo mo it was obvious that there was contact. It probably depends on your definition of the word writhing but she certainly looked to be in some pain while she was on the floor.

Smith was defending and Doty turned, elbows out, while raising her arms above the opponents shoulders. I don't in any way think it was an intentional "thrown elbow" it appears that she was simply raising the ball to pass to Stewart or to get around Smith. It was ruled a flagrant not because of intent but because of the inherent danger presented by an elbow to the head.
Expand ...
Maybe the stupidest rule in basketball. I hope they see fit to protect the person WITH the ball as much as the defenders.
 
Good article.
The Doty comment refers directly back to her opening line, providing context for her lead.
 
.-.
Can someone explain how that was even allowed to be looked at? I have NEVER heard of a coach being able to tell a refs to look at something that wasn't even called during play. I was fuming at the fact that that happened, along with the elbow rule being absolutely RIDICULOUS because it takes every advantage the offensive player should have to make space away. And if they try to make space it's basically an automatic foul on them. I have a feeling it, along with block/charge, will definitely be looked at in the offseason. But does anyone know the full extent of why he was able to ask the refs to look at it?
 
uconnfan68 said:
Maybe the stupidest rule in basketball. I hope they see fit to protect the person WITH the ball as much as the defenders.
Expand ...
Excellent point and I agree 100%.

The player did not get hit. At most it was a graze. Also the player did not "sell" it. That kind of reaction by Smith, is necessary to avoid getting hit. It is like that in baseball. At second base, players slide at the base all the time and SS/2B all jump out of the way and often fall due to the jump, not because of any vicious contact. As many have noted the elbowing rule needs to be re-examined.

Final comment on Doty. Many of us will remember her for her tenacious, enforcer like impact, which is good and one of her great attributes. Personally, I like to think of her prior to her injuries, when you could see her gifted "basketball skills". She has a great shot that rivals anyone's, and great leadership and point guard skills. Too bad those skills could never be showcased because of her injury. She was/is a true basketball talent.
 
housekeys said:
Excellent point and I agree 100%.

The player did not get hit. At most it was a graze. Also the player did not "sell" it. That kind of reaction by Smith, is necessary to avoid getting hit. It is like that in baseball. At second base, players slide at the base all the time and SS/2B all jump out of the way and often fall due to the jump, not because of any vicious contact. As many have noted the elbowing rule needs to be re-examined.

Final comment on Doty. Many of us will remember her for her tenacious, enforcer like impact, which is good and one of her great attributes. Personally, I like to think of her prior to her injuries, when you could see her gifted "basketball skills". She has a great shot that rivals anyone's, and great leadership and point guard skills. Too bad those skills could never be showcased because of her injury. She was/is a true basketball talent.
Expand ...
You know you never know why things happen and if it was in my power, I'd love to give Caroline a 100% healthy career. I do think that sometimes 'fate lends a hand' in putting us on the path we need to be. Good things are in store for Caroline, of that I have no doubt.
 
Why is it that whenever a UConn player smacks somebody its never a foul but if a UConn player gets hit the other team is playing "thugball." :p

A player has the right to clear space. That can even be done with the elbows. Tina Charles was great at it. But they don't have the right to elbow another player in the face in the act of clearing space.
 
Great players and great teams know how to intimidate lesser ones and they do it. I can't say whether it was intentional or not but I wouldn't be shocked if there was at least some intent and some desire to make it real clear that this is the big time. You want to win you have to beat us. We're not giving you an inch.
 
No one has mentioned the poor editing done on the piece yet. First sentence, second paragraph "U-Conn. does things different — and better — on a consistent basis than every other team in the country." Really? Numerous other obvious examples of poor grammar I can point to.

I wouldn't say anything if it were a message board post, but a published Wash. Post piece should be better vetted.
 
.-.
Kait14 said:
Can someone explain how that was even allowed to be looked at? I have NEVER heard of a coach being able to tell a refs to look at something that wasn't even called during play. I was fuming at the fact that that happened, along with the elbow rule being absolutely RIDICULOUS because it takes every advantage the offensive player should have to make space away. And if they try to make space it's basically an automatic foul on them. I have a feeling it, along with block/charge, will definitely be looked at in the offseason. But does anyone know the full extent of why he was able to ask the refs to look at it?
Expand ...
My understanding of the rule is that a coach can make an appeal for the review of a flagrant foul. I'm not clear if a foul has to be called by an official before the coach can appeal.
 
CD Elbow.jpg

Maybe this will help clarify if there was contact. :rolleyes:
 
vowelguy said:
Good article.
The Doty comment refers directly back to her opening line, providing context for her lead.
Expand ...
+1. It was a journalistic phrase more than a dig at CD. I thought it was a great article and meant only in the best sense. As in we're down 14-10 and the act was a spur to our 19 point run. Overall I enjoyed it and while I hate the flagrant rule there was contact - CD went over to check on her after.
 
bellairehusky said:
No one has mentioned the poor editing done on the piece yet. First sentence, second paragraph "U-Conn. does things different — and better — on a consistent basis than every other team in the country." Really? Numerous other obvious examples of poor grammar I can point to.

I wouldn't say anything if it were a message board post, but a published Wash. Post piece should be better vetted.
Expand ...

Yeah, the whole "U-Conn." thing... is Jenkins using a stylebook from the 1820s? It's silly stuff like this that necessitates UConn (one un-hyphenated word, two caps, no period) as the brand.

And yeah, if the refs see that in real time they're going to call it immediately. I won't even say the recipient sold it. It was a legitimate hard elbow through aggressive clearing of space. But a foul nonetheless according to the rules.
 
.-.
storrsroars said:
Yeah, the whole "U-Conn." thing... is Jenkins using a stylebook from the 1820s? It's silly stuff like this that necessitates UConn (one un-hyphenated word, two caps, no period) as the brand.

And yeah, if the refs see that in real time they're going to call it immediately. I won't even say the recipient sold it. It was a legitimate hard elbow through aggressive clearing of space. But a foul nonetheless according to the rules.
Expand ...

I thought the concern was about "different" rather than "differently", but even that doesn't clean it up.
 
vtcwbuff said:
My understanding of the rule is that a coach can make an appeal for the review of a flagrant foul. I'm not clear if a foul has to be called by an official before the coach can appeal.
Expand ...
There doesn't need to be a foul, heck they can review the play 40 seconds later in game action. UConn Men were called for this exact thing at least twice during the season. When Enosch Wolf got called for it, the guy was behind him, and he had no idea he was there, they didn't even call anything till after he passed the ball away, was running up the court and the guy he hit shoved him in "retaliation", which is what the ref actually saw in real time and they went back to see why the guy would have retaliated. It's a "Point of Emphasis" this year that has been emphasized entirely too much.
 
Buzzyboy said:
I actually think it was a ridiculous foul call. It was apparent her arms were directly above her body. In my mind that space belongs to the ballplayer and it was Smith's face that encroached into Caroline's space, thus a foul on her face. At no point was elbows out recklessly. A really stupid call and an imbecile who would even suggest a blatant foul. I would have thrown Reid who brutalized Dolson out of the game and maybe suspended her for a few games starting next season (unless she's a senior, of course). There is such a world of difference in the two calls.
Expand ...
You are wrong. the rule is an elbow above the shoulders is a foul, the offensive player doesn't get to claim that space. Being such a new rule most players are still adapting. Intent is applied to weather it is a level 1 or 2 foul, but it is on the offensive player. Because she did not do it with intent it was only a 1. You are right that Reids foul carried intent, but because she hit Dolson in the area of the ball it was also a 1.
 
storrsroars said:
Yeah, the whole "U-Conn." thing... is Jenkins using a stylebook from the 1820s? It's silly stuff like this that necessitates UConn (one un-hyphenated word, two caps, no period) as the brand.
Expand ...

The Wash Post surely has editors who adhere to a style guide. Nothing to do with Jenkins.
 
Just a legalistic question about this episode:

After the incident, play continued and Stewie scored a layup to make the score 7-5. Then the refs (at Walz's request, apparently) went back to look at the replay and ruled that there had been a Flagrant 1 foul. So why didn't they take Stewie's basket off the scoreboard and reset the clock to the time of the foul that they had just discovered? Wouldn't that be the logical thing to do? Instead, the basket stood and the elapsed time after the incident was not rolled back. It didn't make a difference in this game, but no one knew at the time that would be the case.

I liked the article and was not bothered (except in one case) by the critical points mentioned here. But I agree that this incident had nothing to do with the 19-0 run, which started several minutes later in the game clock. Immediately after the incident, the score went from 5-5 to 14-10 in favor of Louisville before UConn's run started.

The one point in the article that concerned me was the rather vivid reference to the UConn women's muscles. The author probably didn't intend anything by that comment, but in today's world of sports commentary (post Lance Armstrong), that is open to interpretation as subtle innuendo about possible illegal use of performance enhancing drugs. I had visions of East German female Olympians as I read that sentence. A prudent editor would have recognized that and removed this wholly unsubstantiated innuendo (most likely unintended).
 
.-.
The rule is that if no whistle occurs play continues until the next dead ball. All things remain the same through the dead ball. A flagrant foul does not create a dead ball.
 
Sadly, the NYT article has reality crashing the celebration in the penultimate paragraph:

Next season, UConn will probably be ranked No. 1 while playing in a rump league called the American Athletic Conference.
Expand ...
 
Wbbfan1 said:
Wash Post - link

"The Huskies’ Caroline Doty threw a flagrant elbow to the face of Louisville guard Bria Smith that left her writhing on the floor, and that started the pasting."

IMHO this reads as if Caroline intentionally threw the elbow instead of the accidental contact it was. She makes it read like it was a dirty play. Am I reading too much into the sentence?
Expand ...

You are not.

First, Caroline did not throw an elbow to Smith's face. As Doris Burke commented then, Caroline made a "basketball move," by holding the ball up and away from a close defender. As she spun, the contact was inadvertent and by no means intentional. The refs made the correct call, flagrant foul 1, based on a combination of strict adherence to the rules and compliance with the "point of emphasis" about elbow contact that can be injurious. We may never know if they were also motivated by a determination to make sure that this game would not be characterized by the extensive physical contact that occurred in the Louisville-Baylor game.

Second, this foul did not ignite the "pasting." As has been noted, the score when Smith got bopped was about 5-5. The big UConn run of 19 unanswered points started at 14-10 (Louisville leading) when Hartley made a steal and a layup, followed by 17 more consecutive UConn points.

As for the florid prose by Jenkins, I would steal a phrase from The Bard to describe it: "Too clever by half." Especially the careless editing (e.g., "U-Conn.") and that silly stuff about the muscularity of the Huskies.
 
vtcwbuff said:
A player has the right to clear space. That can even be done with the elbows. Tina Charles was great at it. But they don't have the right to elbow another player in the face in the act of clearing space.
Expand ...

Some pertinent info from the rules book. I think the officials got it right.

Art. 7. The following shall be considered excessive swinging:
a. When arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung about while using the shoulders as
pivots, and the speed of the extended arm(s) and elbow(s) exceeds that of
the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot; or
b. When the speed and vigor with which the arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung
is such that injury could result if another player were contacted.

Definitions. 4-29.2.c.6. In summary, contact with an elbow that occurs above the
shoulders of an opponent when the elbows are not swung excessively per 4-36.7.a
is a flagrant 1 personal foul and results in two free throws and the ball awarded to
the offended team (2010-2011 rule change).

Officials and Their Duties. 2-13.2.d.1.b. A coach may request a monitor
review to determine if any of the fouls in 2-13.2.d.1 occurred. When no such foul
is assessed, a timeout shall be charged to that team

Flagrant 1 or Flagrant 2 Fouls for Elbow Contact
Officials are reminded that there can be incidental contact with the elbow above
or below the shoulders; swinging of the elbow is required for the foul to be
classified as a flagrant 1 or 2 foul. Some incidental contact is being penalized
improperly.

d. Flagrant 2 personal foul. A flagrant 2 personal foul shall be a personal
foul that involves contact with an opponent that is not only excessive, but
also severe or extreme while the ball is live.
 
intlzncster said:
Did Doty even make contact? I thought the Ville player just sold it. I couldn't tell when from my so comfortable reclined position on the couch.
Expand ...
Doty definitely made contact...Smith was down for a long time and was pretty fired up after. Additionally, Doty came over and apologized once there was a dead ball-doubtful she does that if no contact was made.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,398
Messages
4,571,050
Members
10,476
Latest member
CT1998


Top Bottom