What was the correct ruling on the flagrant?

[ASweet3781]

I see some people on twitter, not fans, but journalists like Sally Jenkins and LaChina Robinson still going on about how the refs were trying to hand us the game with the flagrant call and Williams shot saved the NCAA from major controversy. That's quite a charge to be putting out there. I couldn't find much clarification on this topic not shaded by bias so I am still confused.

Was the ruling the correct one?

 

[DALTX]

The TV commentators were certain it was the right call, and it was reviewed for a long time. So, two commentators and three refs at the game thought it was correct. The rule is clear, and it clearly applied. I haven't read what those journalists said, any quotes? Sounds like UConn hate.

Had UConn not called a timeout 30 seconds after the incident, would it have even been reviewed?

You mean the William shot.

 

[Wally East]

If UConn had won as a result of the flagrant call, there would've been a lot more talk about how the refs were UConn homers and what-not. It would've been ugly.

That said, I think it was the right call. I wish they would've made the call when the play happened though.

 

[ASweet3781]

I wasn't listening to the ESPN broadcast so I missed the explanation of the rule. I can understand how it was handled why it would lead to controversy if we had won.

The TV commentators were certain it was the right call, and it was reviewed for a long time. So, two commentators and three refs at the game thought it was correct. The rule is clear, and it clearly applied. I haven't read what those journalists said, any quotes? Sounds like UConn hate.

Sally Jenkins‏Verified account @sallyjenx 15h15 hours ago
Agreed. It looked like Morgan William didn't have to just beat UConn, but three officials.


Sally Jenkins‏Verified account @sallyjenx 15h15 hours ago


My impression, and it's just an impression: refs bowed to the UConn name.

 

[DALTX]

That's just rhetoric. Further, Morgan William was not involved in that incident. And in fairness, the refs arguably erred in Mississippi State's favor (as well as ours) a few times during the game. For example, Gabby's 4th foul.

I watched the replay several times myself, and with that video evidence you have to make the call. It wasn't bowing to UConn's name; if it was they might have called it on the spot.

 

[AndyCT]

I see some people on twitter, not fans, but journalists like Sally Jenkins and LaChina Robinson still going on about how the refs were trying to hand us the game with the flagrant call and Williams shot saved the NCAA from major controversy. That's quite a charge to be putting out there. I couldn't find much clarification on this topic not shaded by bias so I am still confused.

Was the ruling the correct one?

Never pay attention to LaChina; she's not a journalist so much as sports "chatterer" (?). She's also the one who used to refer to Jewell Lloyd as "the real NPOY". She has always had issues with UConn.

I pretty much lost respect for Mechelle Voepel after her "Nice acting job by Katie Lou Samuelson" tweet last night; it has since been pulled down but I did see it. Strange because that's not what I would have expected from her, but it was also posted on VolNation as well as here, so I wasn't imagining it.

On the other hand, I always take Doris and Kara seriously and they did not hesitate; Dave seemed a little uncertain, but when he asked Doris and Kara certainly ageed with the call and seemed adamant.

I am definitely not a rules expert, but i know from other times that they've called this type of flagrant 1 that what usually matters is a blow above the shoulder, not necessarily the head itself; it doesn't need to be intentional, and it can be called even if it was on a "basketball play" - an example would be Caroline Doty's flagrant 1 in the 2013 national championship game.

Anyway, given that Doris and Kara were in agreement, and especially because LaChina is not, it must be a good call.

 

[HuskyNan]

I wasn't listening to the ESPN broadcast so I missed the explanation of the rule. I can understand how it was handled why it would lead to controversy if we had won.

Sally Jenkins‏Verified account @sallyjenx 15h15 hours ago
Agreed. It looked like Morgan William didn't have to just beat UConn, but three officials.

Sally Jenkins‏Verified account @sallyjenx 15h15 hours ago

My impression, and it's just an impression: refs bowed to the UConn name.

Sally Jenkins is not the most objective writer when it comes to UConn. That's about as tactfully as I can put that.

 

[oldude]

The call was correct but there was a reason it took the refs so long to make it. Dillingham was doing everything she could to deny Lou the ball down low. Her elbow across the throat was inadvertent and to some degree incidental. The inadvertent aspect is irrelevant when it comes to a flagrant foul but the incidental aspect is relevant, particularly in the low post, where pushing and shoving is common.

The fact that the ball never got to Lou is also relevant because the contact didn't negatively impact a scoring opportunity, so once again the refs come back to was Dillingham's elbow incidental?

The second aspect of a flagrant foul is that it could or does cause injury. The critical element here is Lou's reaction. I say this in great appreciation of her ability in this regard, Lou sells fouls better than anyone in WBB. There's a point when Lou sees that the ball is not going to get to her when she throws back her head, grabs her throat and falls to the floor in pain.

Is Lou really in pain? Maybe. Is Lou giving an "Oscar worthy" performance? Maybe. In the end, with the game's outcome on the line, the refs decided a real injury occurred, which was a difficult decision given the significance of the situation.

 

[Tonyc]

Well maybe Sally should look at UConn leading by 3 with approx 2 minutes left and the foul call on Gabby which wasnt even close and the plays that followed leading to MSU tying the game. The no call with Saniya will bother me forever. She shouldve been on the line. So tonite I do not watch the Finals.

 

[UConnNick]

There's no question it was a flagrant 1, according to the rules. It was likely inadvertent, but intent has nothing to do with it. Pay no attention to Sally Jenkins, who's an orange glasses wearing Lady Vols' hack, or Michelle Voepel.

All I can say about KLS reaction to the play is if it was really an acting job it was one of the best performances I've ever seen, and that's exactly what she should have done under the circumstances, act or not.

 

[southie]

I don't know. And, I definitely don't know all the rules.

As they continued to show the replays, I didn't see Dillingham's elbow make contact with Samuelson's throat; I saw they backside of her hand touching right below her chin. I do think there was contact. But, not to the extent to validate Samuelson's reaction. Just my opinion.

This won't be a popular argument here, but, the "flagrant" foul called on Dillingham in OT paled in comparison to that forearm to the throat Kia Nurse delivered to Morgan William toward the end of the 1st quarter. Not sure why that one wasn't reviewed; they had called it a regular foul (moving screen), but didn't lead to free throws as MSU was not yet in the bonus, IIRC. It was clearly intentional, but I can't say that Dillingham's foul was intentional was she was trying to deny the ball.

 

[Stinger92860]

I don't know. And, I definitely don't know all the rules.

As they continued to show the replays, I didn't see Dillingham's elbow make contact with Samuelson's throat; I saw they backside of her hand touching right below her chin. I do think there was contact. But, not to the extent to validate Samuelson's reaction. Just my opinion.

This won't be a popular argument here, but, the "flagrant" foul called on Dillingham in OT paled in comparison to that forearm to the throat Kia Nurse delivered to Morgan William toward the end of the 1st quarter. Not sure why that one wasn't reviewed; they had called it a regular foul (moving screen), but didn't lead to free throws as MSU was not yet in the bonus, IIRC. It was clearly intentional, but I can't say that Dillingham's foul was intentional was she was trying to deny the ball.

Can someone post the video of this play, so can discuss objectively?

 

[Waquoit]

All I can say about KLS reaction to the play is if it was really an acting job it was one of the best performances I've ever seen, and that's exactly what she should have done under the circumstances, act or not.

I can't agree. Acting to get a call isn't UConn basketball, IMO. It was a weak call and refs should have let it go. Real time I was thinking it would be a lousy way to win.

 

[HuskyNan]

Can someone post the video of this play, so can discuss objectively?

It's at about 5:00 in this video.

 

[Stinger92860]

In the thread "The Foul (or not)" I posted a video of the overtime. The technical is at about 4:30 in the video.

My apologies Nan, I was asking about the foul on Kia.

 

[UConnNick]

I can't agree. Acting to get a call isn't UConn basketball, IMO. It was a weak call and refs should have let it go. Real time I was thinking it would be a lousy way to win.

Nobody knows, nor will anybody other than perhaps team members or coaches ever know for sure whether or not there were any dramatics. Her recoil reaction was a natural looking result of getting hit in the head. Even if it wasn't, I still think under the cicumstances, down by two you sell the call if you have to. Playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rules in the FF buys you a plane ticket back home.

 

[HuskyNan]

My apologies Nan, I was asking about the foul on Kia.

If you go to YouTube, there are tons of video of the game.

 

[eebmg]

Just finished seeing the 'Sports Reporters' and the opinions went from

1) Refs were helping UConn to
2) Correct call by letter of the law but the rule (law) is terrible. (Whatever that means?)

I thought the biggest issue that made alot of people nuts is the retroactive assignment of the Flagrant call since the ref's did not call anything at the time.

I do think if we won because of the call, UConn would have taken a a major beating press wise.

 

[UcMiami]

Just finished seeing the 'Sports Reporters' and the opinions went from

1) Refs were helping UConn to
2) Correct call by letter of the law but the rule (law) is terrible. (Whatever that means?)

I thought the biggest issue that made alot of people nuts is the retroactive assignment of the Flagrant call since the ref's did not call anything at the time.

I do think if we won because of the call, UConn would have taken a a major beating press wise.

The retroactive aspect of the flagrant foul happens all the time - it happened on a CD2 foul against I think Louisville in I believe an NCAA final. It was a weird situation because Uconn actually scored or was awarded two foul shots later in the play, the officials then reviewed the play and awarded Louisville the foul shots and the ball but the Uconn foul shots or score still counted. (I may have player and opponent completely messed up but I distinctly remember the foul and that Uconn scored before the review took effect - foul out top with Uconn player swinging the ball around to clear space and an elbow hitting the defender above the shoulder.)
Coaches can ask refs to make the review, but it can only happen during a dead ball. Because a lot of reviews occur on plays where a foul has already occurred that is what people associate the most with the reviews.

 

[hoophuskee]

I see some people on twitter, not fans, but journalists like Sally Jenkins and LaChina Robinson still going on about how the refs were trying to hand us the game with the flagrant call and Williams shot saved the NCAA from major controversy. That's quite a charge to be putting out there. I couldn't find much clarification on this topic not shaded by bias so I am still confused.

Was the ruling the correct one?

I don't agree with olddude at all. That was not a sell - she got elbowed in the throat. I've been elbowed in the throat. It hurts and secondly it's the shock of getting popped there. No offense to olddude and I agree with nearly all of opinions but not with this one and Lou acting. I think he's bringing out his" inner Meghan Patterson."

 

[oldude]

I don't agree with olddude at all. That was nto a sell - she got elbowed in the throat. I've been elbowed int eh throat. It hurts and secondly it's the shock of getting popped there. No offense to olddude and I agree with nearly all of opinions but not with this one and Lou acting I think he's bringing out his inner Meghan Patterson.

Only Lou knows for sure and she ain't talkin.

 

[UcMiami]

And by the way - I think in end of game situations with intentional fouls on player without the ball, they do not call the flagrant often enough. I have seen out of bounds plays where the worst FT shooter is fouled when the ball was no where near them and often before the in-bounds throw has happened, and they just call a regular foul.

I was not aware of the Flagrant automatically being invoked for grabbing a uniform - I think in the TN game against Louisville that happened this year on an intentional foul situation where the TN player grabbed the jersey, and Jeff immediately signaled flagrant and the refs reviewed and awarded it.

 

[hoophuskee]

The call was correct but there was a reason it took the refs so long to make it. Dillingham was doing everything she could to deny Lou the ball down low. Her elbow across the throat was inadvertent and to some degree incidental. The inadvertent aspect is irrelevant when it comes to a flagrant foul but the incidental aspect is relevant, particularly in the low post, where pushing and shoving is common.

The fact that the ball never got to Lou is also relevant because the contact didn't negatively impact a scoring opportunity, so once again the refs come back to was Dillingham's elbow incidental?

The second aspect of a flagrant foul is that it could or does cause injury. The critical element here is Lou's reaction. I say this in great appreciation of her ability in this regard, Lou sells fouls better than anyone in WBB. There's a point when Lou sees that the ball is not going to get to her when she throws back her head, grabs her throat and falls to the floor in pain.

Is Lou really in pain? Maybe. Is Lou giving an "Oscar worthy" performance? Maybe. In the end, with the game's outcome on the line, the refs decided a real injury occurred, which was a difficult decision given the significance of the situation.

I am so glad you didn't take offense to my post!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[oldude]

One additional thought on the call. The flagrant call may be subject to dispute. As I've stated I think it was correct.

But here's another question, was it a common foul that the refs missed? With Dillingham all over Lou, impeding her cut to the basket, my answer is most definitely yes. If the refs call the common foul, the Bulldogs don't get 2 at the other end, Lou hits 2 foul shots and the Huskies are up 2 with 25 seconds to play.

 

[stamfordhusky]

The call was correct but there was a reason it took the refs so long to make it. Dillingham was doing everything she could to deny Lou the ball down low. Her elbow across the throat was inadvertent and to some degree incidental. The inadvertent aspect is irrelevant when it comes to a flagrant foul but the incidental aspect is relevant, particularly in the low post, where pushing and shoving is common.

The fact that the ball never got to Lou is also relevant because the contact didn't negatively impact a scoring opportunity, so once again the refs come back to was Dillingham's elbow incidental?

The second aspect of a flagrant foul is that it could or does cause injury. The critical element here is Lou's reaction. I say this in great appreciation of her ability in this regard, Lou sells fouls better than anyone in WBB. There's a point when Lou sees that the ball is not going to get to her when she throws back her head, grabs her throat and falls to the floor in pain.

Is Lou really in pain? Maybe. Is Lou giving an "Oscar worthy" performance? Maybe. In the end, with the game's outcome on the line, the refs decided a real injury occurred, which was a difficult decision given the significance of the situation.

I can tell you as a former ref that whether or not it causes injury has nothing to do with whether it is a Flagrant 1 and no good ref would even be thinking of that. Injuries often occur on fouls that are not flagrants, and flagrants usually produce no injury.

I'm not sure if it's been posted, but here is the NCAA rule for a Flagrant 1:

Flagrant 1 personal foul. A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but is not based solely on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in. This act shall also serve as a team warning for reaching through the boundary (See Rule 4-11.1.g);
6. Illegal contact caused by swinging of an elbow that is deemed excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 personal foul (See Rule 4-19.7)


The only one of the six at issue is #1, whether it was "excessive contact". #6 does not apply since that only applies to excessive "swinging" of the elbow, and that did not happen here.