What was the correct ruling on the flagrant?

[CocoHusky]

Retroactive was the most disturbing aspect that added to the controversy. The call was the correct one by rule. If the call were made in real time it would have been 2 shots for UCONN and possession of the ball. Because the call was made retroactively, MSU got a possession that could have extended the MSU lead. UCONN got a stop and possession which allowed for the stoppage and video review. The review resulted in two shots for UCONN. UCONN retained the possession earned on the stop. Those that are thinking that the refs were trying to help UCONN are nuts, because as Geno said if you are trying to help UCONN you make that call when it happened because it was right in front of the ref on the baseline.

What happens if MSU had scored on that possession?

 

[HoopsFan21]

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.

Yeah that was when Doty secured a rebound I think and swung her elbows to clear space and decked Bria Smith. That was very early in the game, I think UConn was up 7-5 when the official review happened, and I think there was some debate on that one whether Doty's elbow ever actually made contact with Smith.

 

[UcMiami]

One other review that happens retroactively and I do not believe has ever happened in the last seconds of a game to change an outcome but could have huge consequences in how those seconds play out is a three point shot review. You can imagine situations where the end of game and player strategy would be completely different if the refs made a mistake awarding a two rather than a three or visa versa, and the review happening after an ensuing foul or desperation play that would have been different with a different score on the board.

Stamford - is that the current complete rule, because there is often the stated issue of swinging an elbow in a dangerous manner whether or not it actually makes contact (or of course throwing a punch that makes no contact but that is flagrant 2 I guess.)

 

[Waquoit]

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;...

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.

Thank you for this legwork. I was taking at face value all the comments that it was the right call by rule. After reading the rule, I don't think it was the right call. The contact wasn't excessive, it certainly wasn't intentional. And making the call retroactively was bogus.

 

[Gus Mahler]

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.

Stamford, thanks for posting this.

I'm curious that there is no reference to contact above the shoulder. Can you enlighten us on what that's about? Is that part of a Flagrant 2?

 

[UConnNick]

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."

I was at the game so I just finished watching the replay. It looked like she may have gotten hit in the throat area. Even if the physical contact was on the minimal to moderate side, that's a highly sensitive spot. Most people would react the way KLS did initially, even if it later turned out not to be a debilitating injury of any kind. You're startled by it at the moment it happens, and your brain is wired to defensively recoil from the contact. I don't think it was an act on her part.

 

[CL82]

What does everyone think of the non-call on Saniya's drive at the end of the game? I haven't watched the replay but with that much contact, it sure seems like it is something, right? Charge or block but not a no call with two players on the ground and the game on the line.

 

[southie]

They are showing replay of game on ESPNU right now. And, reviewing the play.

What I find interesting is that UConn called a timeout with 26.5 seconds left. But, officials didn't appear to be intent on reviewing play at that time, or they would have stopped play prior to UConn's timeout. What if UConn had not called a timeout (or didn't have one). Doesn't seem like the officials were gonna stop the clock to conduct a review.

 

[UConnNick]

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.

Gabby's fourth foul was likely the absolute worst call of the game. There were quite a few bad ones, admittedly on both sides, but overall I'd say favoring MSU because our best player was forced to play D with 3 or 4 fouls from the first minute of the 4Q. The third foul call on her was questionable at best. She arguably should have had only two going into OT. That had to have an adverse effect on her ability to play defense to the level she's capable of.

 

[stamfordhusky]

One other review that happens retroactively and I do not believe has ever happened in the last seconds of a game to change an outcome but could have huge consequences in how those seconds play out is a three point shot review. You can imagine situations where the end of game and player strategy would be completely different if the refs made a mistake awarding a two rather than a three or visa versa, and the review happening after an ensuing foul or desperation play that would have been different with a different score on the board.

Stamford - is that the current complete rule, because there is often the stated issue of swinging an elbow in a dangerous manner whether or not it actually makes contact (or of course throwing a punch that makes no contact but that is flagrant 2 I guess.)

It can be a "violation" if the elbows are swung in a dangerous manner without making contact.

Section 13. Elbow(s) Art.
1. It is a violation when a player excessively swings her arm(s) or elbow(s), even without contacting an opponent. . . .

PENALTY (Section 13):
. . . The ball is awarded to the opponent at the out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the violation occurred.


As for a Flagrant 2, this is the definition:

Flagrant 2 personal foul.
A flagrant 2 personal foul is a personal foul that involves contact with an opponent that is not only excessive, but also severe or extreme while the ball is live.


There is some additional mention of elbows/flagrants in the "Fouls and Penalties" section of the Rules, specifically saying the following is a foul:

Art. 14. Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:
a. Results from total body movement is a common or flagrant 1 personal foul.
b. Is excessive per Rule 4-19.7 is a flagrant 2 foul.
c. Occurs above or below the shoulders of an opponent is a common, flagrant 1 or flagrant 2 personal foul.

Art. 15. Illegal contact with an elbow that does not involve the swinging of the elbow shall be considered a foul.


Note that the rule that used to distinguish between contact above and below the shoulders was changed a few years ago to theoretically make it the same when it comes to flagrants.

 

[stamfordhusky]

They are showing replay of game on ESPNU right now. And, reviewing the play.

What I find interesting is that UConn called a timeout with 26.5 seconds left. But, officials didn't appear to be intent on reviewing play at that time, or they would have stopped play prior to UConn's timeout. What if UConn had not called a timeout (or didn't have one). Doesn't seem like the officials were gonna stop the clock to conduct a review.

Officials are not allowed to stop the clock for a replay in a situation like that. It can only be reviewed at the next dead ball.

 

[SVCBeercats]

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 would not be concern with Ms. Jenkins and Ms. Robinson trying to get their name and face out there by trying to start a nonexistent controversy.

 

[southie]

Officials are not allowed to stop the clock for a replay in a situation like that. It can only be reviewed at the next dead ball.

Thanks. So, if UConn did not have a timeout remaining, there's a chance the game clock would have continued to wind down and that play never gets reviewed? Interesting.

 

[Tenspro2002]

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.

That's absolutely despicable from a national commentator. Should be fired, frankly.

 

[Tenspro2002]

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.

This.

The scenario could have unfolded in several ways:

1) What actually happened -- no call at the time (which was wrong), and a delayed flagrant-1 call (which was right). We have the ball in a tie game with ~20 seconds to go
2) They call a common foul at the time, and determine that the elbow to the throat was incidental, no flagrant, but 2 shots. Lou makes both, MSU misses on their end, and we have the ball in a tie game with ~20 seconds to go
3) They call a flagrant-1 at the time, we get 2 shots and the ball. Lou makes both, and we have it in a tie game with ~50 seconds to go.
4) They blow the call at the time and don't award a flagrant-1 later. We're down 2 with 20 seconds to go.

Are people really arguing that scenario #4 is the most just out of all of those? Frankly, it should have been #2, which leaves us in the exact same position as the way it actually occurred.

I think the refs were embarrassed for having missed the call in the first place, plus the letter of the law on the elbow to the face, compelled them to call the flagrant-1. Not doing so would have been an even grosser injustice.

 

[Biff]

What does everyone think of the non-call on Saniya's drive at the end of the game? I haven't watched the replay but with that much contact, it sure seems like it is something, right? Charge or block but not a no call with two players on the ground and the game on the line.

there is a thread on this here

 

[wallman]

Simple, KLS is 6' 3" why was her elbow in KLS throat area when there was no ball near either of them

The refs were simply atrocious for final four games but although they missed the original obvious call and including many other calls on both sides, they actually got the review correct and the NCAA has confirmed that fact.

 

[PAHuskeyFan]

Completely agree with those who feel refs blew it by not calling the foul on Lou when it happened... similar to the discussion a week or so ago regarding the no call when Canada smacked Lou in the face with a fore arm. No one in WCBB is that good of an actress for the refs to miss those 2 fouls when they happened. We will never know, but the game could have ended much differently if called when it happened. Either way it was a clear flagrant 1 in my opinion... even if the defender did it by accident.

 

[UcMiami]

Thanks. So, if UConn did not have a timeout remaining, there's a chance the game clock would have continued to wind down and that play never gets reviewed? Interesting.

Worse, it could have been reviewed once the game clock expired before the refs left the court!!! But the reason uconn called that time out was to force the review. Once the flagrant was awarded, Uconn had the ball with the shot clock turned off. No flagrant and they would have had to shoot with about ten seconds left (which they ended up doing anyway.)

 

[Deadrody]

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.

This is how I saw it as well. I'm glad the call ultimately didn't cost Miss St the game because it was, INDEED, an oscar worthy performance. But then, unless someone is going to claim the officials got every other call just exactly perfect, well, it's a moot point.

 

[wallman]

You do realize they didn't make the call? Therefore, the review had to show that it was indeed flagrant for them to even consider calling anything near that. Every ref I know, would say that they are reluctant to change anything that was missed, without it being so obvious from the review that they had to.

 

[stamfordhusky]

This is how I saw it as well. I'm glad the call ultimately didn't cost Miss St the game because it was, INDEED, an oscar worthy performance. But then, unless someone is going to claim the officials got every other call just exactly perfect, well, it's a moot point.

Just to clarify, since you have quoted a post that was not correct. It is irrelevant as far as calling a flagrant whether or not a player is injured.

 

[oldude]

You do realize they didn't make the call? Therefore, the review had to show that it was indeed flagrant for them to even consider calling anything near that. Every ref I know, would say that they are reluctant to change anything that was missed, without it being so obvious from the review that they had to.

Zebras are human. It had to occur to them when they reviewed the tape that, at a minimum, they missed a common foul when Dillingham impeded Lou's cut down the lane by grabbing and pushing her, so maybe, just maybe, that made it a little easier to assess a flagrant foul.

Just saying....

 

[wallman]

Not really. Do you any refs? I know a lot. The fact that they took so long to review and that they watched the replay from every angle had to show the nature of the hit. Quite frankly they did not want to give you the call, but they had to as they know that the NCAA would also review this call. Just saying....

BTW if you think refs give a hoot about missing calls, then you didn't watch the game LOL.

 

[MilfordHusky]

I thought that Lou may have dramatized the foul, but there was clearly contact above the shoulders that is impermissible. At the time, I though the female ref who saw it and decided to call nothing might have had a Mississippi State bias. Though the call came late, it was a correct call.

Sally Jenkins has personal biases, so anything she writes on Tennessee or UConn should be dismissed.