Sally Jenkins Wash Post Column | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Sally Jenkins Wash Post Column

Status
Not open for further replies.
DobbsRover2 said:
Not intentional, maybe semi-intentional, and contact in the course of normal space clearing action. Louisville's only real chance was to play harrassing close-up defense like they did with Baylor and then hope that the Huskies would be rattled and their play would be disrupted. Smith hits the floor, and it seemed to me that a lot of steam went out of the aggressiveness of the Cards D. They still got plenty of steals with quick hands, but the Huskies were open, and it is no coincidence that UConn went immediately on a 19-0 run. Maybe if Griner had "oops, sorry" laid out a defender early in the Sweet 16 game, it would have been a different match up in the NC. Subconsciously, you don't want to get that close to a Husky ball handler when you're thinking about your face being cratered.
Expand ...
I can't believe how many people on this site are misrepresenting what happened. Doty's arms were extended directly over her head and at no time was she swinging them in such a manner as to "clear space". She owns the spot directly above her body (in my mind) and it was the Louisville player that "invaded Doty's space) that resulted in her getting hit. I almost feel that she should have been called for a foul for invading Doty's space. Maybe Doty should have remained perfectly still and allowed the Louisville player to either steal the ball from her or at least tie her up. What utter nonsense.
 
Buzzyboy said:
I can't believe how many people on this site are misrepresenting what happened. Doty's arms were extended directly over her head and at no time was she swinging them in such a manner as to "clear space". She owns the spot directly above her body (in my mind) and it was the Louisville player that "invaded Doty's space) that resulted in her getting hit. I almost feel that she should have been called for a foul for invading Doty's space. Maybe Doty should have remained perfectly still and allowed the Louisville player to either steal the ball from her or at least tie her up. What utter nonsense.
Expand ...

absolutely. smith definitely should have been called for smacking caroline's elbow with her forehead.
 
boontonbomber said:
absolutely. smith definitely should have been called for smacking caroline's elbow with her forehead.
Expand ...
Hah, you could not be more wrong...she smacked Caroline with her mouth.
 
.-.
Buzzyboy said:
I can't believe how many people on this site are misrepresenting what happened. Doty's arms were extended directly over her head and at no time was she swinging them in such a manner as to "clear space". She owns the spot directly above her body (in my mind) and it was the Louisville player that "invaded Doty's space) that resulted in her getting hit. I almost feel that she should have been called for a foul for invading Doty's space. Maybe Doty should have remained perfectly still and allowed the Louisville player to either steal the ball from her or at least tie her up. What utter nonsense.
Expand ...
That's a hoot! Smith's head was over CD's body? Smith was kind of floating up there over CD? Not even close.

Smith had her head leaning in on CD and she got clipped as CD swung the ball from chest high to over her head. No big deal. Stuff happens, and no, every time a defender gets in close to grab the ball she does not usually get whacked. But CD was establishing the rules and limits for the rest of the game like a savvy senior, and the space opened up big time for UConn.

But the revelers want to stop having to force themselves to read this thread so they can enjoy their nirvana. So deep-6.
 
Looking at the video it's clear, as 'yarders in this thread have suggested, that not only did Caroline NOT make contact, but Smith threw herself to the floor and pretended to be hurt.

"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."
 
JoePgh said:
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).
Expand ...
I didn't take it like that at all. I looked at it as a complement. It went along with the article that UCONN (or U-Conn) just works that much harder than other teams.
 
.-.
Buzzyboy said:
I can't believe how many people on this site are misrepresenting what happened. Doty's arms were extended directly over her head and at no time was she swinging them in such a manner as to "clear space".
Expand ...
Ummm NO. You are completely wrong here. She absolutely was trying to clear space. You could see it on her face when she sat down on the bench, "I bet they are not up in my grill next time."

And she might even have been trying to send a message. But either way message was sent and received. :cool:
 
meyers7 said:
I didn't take it like that at all. I looked at it as a complement. It went along with the article that UCONN (or U-Conn) just works that much harder than other teams.
Expand ...

Absolutely. They are athletes. To write that the UConn women appear to be in better physical shape than their opponents is a compliment. The days when female muscles were considered unattractive (not the word I want) has long passed.

Even Jenkins wouldn't be dumb enough to imply that the UConn team was doping. They get that way because Auriemma is a taskmaster.
 
Buzzyboy said:
I can't believe how many people on this site are misrepresenting what happened. Doty's arms were extended directly over her head and at no time was she swinging them in such a manner as to "clear space". She owns the spot directly above her body (in my mind) and it was the Louisville player that "invaded Doty's space) that resulted in her getting hit. I almost feel that she should have been called for a foul for invading Doty's space. Maybe Doty should have remained perfectly still and allowed the Louisville player to either steal the ball from her or at least tie her up. What utter nonsense.
Expand ...

Take a look at the picture if you think her arms are directly over her head!
 
.-.
ThisJustIn said:
Looking at the video it's clear, as 'yarders in this thread have suggested, that not only did Caroline NOT make contact, but Smith threw herself to the floor and pretended to be hurt.

"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."
Expand ...
Tell the truth, the video is so unclear I wouldn't be surprised either way, but there does appear at least the possibility that CD's elbow tip did connect with the lower part of Smith's face as it whipped past, but the contact couldn't have been enough to impede the fluid movement of the arms. And if Smith was just jerking her head back to avoid the elbow and then selling the acting job, then she's very good and has supernatural anticipation. Plus, taking a charge late in a game can be a great way to fire up your teammates, but acting like you've been clocked and almost had your teeth knocked out early in a game is a very problematic way to inspire your crew. "Ah yeah, Bria. Thanks for losing your incisors for us, but personally I think I'll stand back a ways and let them just fire up those 3s if they want to. I need this face. I'm no Rudy T."

Either way, CD had an angel's smile.
 
Re the article, the print edition has a header missing in the on-line version:

"These champion Huskies are a rare breed."
 
JoePgh said:
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).
Expand ...

That's the first thought that came to my mind when I read about the muscles.
 
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.


Looking at the rule I would suggest that the officials applied it very questionably as per the rule. In Caroline's action the shoulder was not the pivot her trunk and spine were the pivot and axis of rotation. There was no throwing of the elbow from the shoulder point as pivot. Nor did the speed of her elbows exceed the speed of her body. This is a portion of the rule that was completely neglected in the discussion on air. It would seem to fall under (b.) but that is an incredibly vague measure.

Thought this was an interesting aspect of the rule as written.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,398
Messages
4,571,056
Members
10,476
Latest member
CT1998


Top Bottom