What was the correct ruling on the flagrant?

[oldude]

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.

As the originator of the post in question I feel the need to point out that I never actually said a player had to be injured in order for a flagrant to be assessed. What I specifically said was that the foul, "could or does result in injury." Had Lou not thrown her head back, grabbed her throat and fallen to the floor, I suspect the play would have never been reviewed.

We will likely never know if Lou was actually injured, selling the foul or both, but IMO, the evidence of an actual injury was critical to this particular flagrant foul being assessed.

 

[HopJim]

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....

While I hate second guessing the refs (doesn't change the score and always two sides), will break my own rule. Seemed like there was a lot of "make up" calls at end of game. Refs, particularly on Gabby's last foul where she didn't appear to touch the offensive player, seemed to be reacting poorly to pressure.

 

[wallman]

On the whole the final four officiating was abysmal. After a while, you recognize the same refs making the same calls for the same coaches and it is across the board. I will admit to watching a west coast ref call against you last year. Truth is that the refs themselves know who these refs are and the good ones wish they could refuse to be part of their crews but there are not enough good refs to turn down work.

BTW a few who tweeted have since deleted, realizing that they did so in the heat of the game and would have had egg on their face.

 

[stamfordhusky]

As the originator of the post in question I feel the need to point out that I never actually said a player had to be injured in order for a flagrant to be assessed. What I specifically said was that the foul, "could or does result in injury." Had Lou not thrown her head back, grabbed her throat and fallen to the floor, I suspect the play would have never been reviewed.

We will likely never know if Lou was actually injured, selling the foul or both, but IMO, the evidence of an actual injury was critical to this particular flagrant foul being assessed.

What you said was that the " second aspect of a flagrant foul is that it could or does cause injury. ". Since injury is irrelevant to whether it is a flagrant, I'm not sure why you would say that.

As for the play being reviewed, the coach is allowed to request a review in situations like this. It is 100% certain the play would have been reviewed regardless of how Lou reacted.

 

[oldude]

What you said was that the " second aspect of a flagrant foul is that it could or does cause injury. ". Since injury is irrelevant to whether it is a flagrant, I'm not sure why you would say that.

As for the play being reviewed, the coach is allowed to request a review in situations like this. It is 100% certain the play would have been reviewed regardless of how Lou reacted.

I'll agree that whether or not Lou was injured was irrelevant, but without the appearance of injury to Lou, why would Geno request a review? Like everyone else, he was likely focused on the ball being stolen at the foul line

 

[Tonyc]

I really like the posts above and would encourage everyone who cares to watch the last 2 minutes beginning with UConns 3 pt lead then Gabbys foul that was far from a foul. They couldve called it on Geno while he was on the bench??????? It wasnt close. The last 2 minutes were anti UConn calls. No sour grapes here watch first then decide. If you think Im wrong go back to the UCLA game with UConn ahead by double digits and see how many times the refs stopped the game for review . Not saying it was anti UConn but why during the UCLA game and not in the Miss St game???????

 

[BroadwayVa]

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.

I'm glad Kara agreed with the call---or my Uconn bias was driving my view of multiple showings of the forearm to the throat of KLS
It may have been a great acting job--but wasted on the refs they didn't see it until Geno an Chris told them about it.

There was another play with William (Miss) she drove towards the basket picked up the ball and dribble again
the pundits called that a hesitation dribble---in my old old days that was called a CARRY--TRAVEL--is this some new
AAU trick sneaked into WBB---stop pick it up---put it down and dribble away---
Hesitation used to be proceed forward -dribble back a step or two--then full speed ahead--no lifting of the ball
Saw a lot of left to right or right to left dribbles where the ball was carried from left to right or --no call --new stuff???

 

[oldude]

I'm glad Kara agreed with the call---or my Uconn bias was driving my view of multiple showings of the forearm to the throat of KLS
It may have been a great acting job--but wasted on the refs they didn't see it until Geno an Chris told them about it.

There was another play with William (Miss) she drove towards the basket picked up the ball and dribble again
the pundits called that a hesitation dribble---in my old old days that was called a CARRY--TRAVEL--is this some new
AAU trick sneaked into WBB---stop pick it up---put it down and dribble away---
Hesitation used to be proceed forward -dribble back a step or two--then full speed ahead--no lifting of the ball
Saw a lot of left to right or right to left dribbles where the ball was carried from left to right or --no call --new stuff???

Sort of agree with your whole "hesitation dribble" analysis, but in the interest of full disclosure, if William was guilty of carry-travel, then the refs could have called Mo for that infraction a couple hundred times during her career at UConn.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Sort of agree with your whole "hesitation dribble" analysis, but in the interest of full disclosure, if William was guilty of carry-travel, then the refs could have called Mo for that infraction a couple hundred times during her career at UConn.

My memory is faulty---except on fundamentals drilled into me--yet I don't remember Moriah picking the ball up then put it back down and trudge along---I did see her hundreds of time "carry the ball " from one hand to the other--and the kids with the bigger hands smaller ball can actually dribble up the floor holding the ball on nearly every bounce --the hesitation is milliseconds but they are there. Is this the Moriah hesitation you spoke of --William hesitation was seconds long. (dead horse except the comment)
Unfortunately for me ---I believe if a rule is written on record use it or dump it--if it remains it can be used selectively--which can lead to biased calls.

 

[oldude]

My memory is faulty---except on fundamentals drilled into me--yet I don't remember Moriah picking the ball up then put it back down and trudge along---I did see her hundreds of time "carry the ball " from one hand to the other--and the kids with the bigger hands smaller ball can actually dribble up the floor holding the ball on nearly every bounce --the hesitation is milliseconds but they are there. Is this the Moriah hesitation you spoke of --William hesitation was seconds long. (dead horse except the comment)
Unfortunately for me ---I believe if a rule is written on record use it or dump it--if it remains it can be used selectively--which can lead to biased calls.

Mo had a couple of ankle-breaking moves that typically involved her sliding her hand slightly under the ball and holding it for a split second, resulting in a defender getting a little flat footed, followed by Mo exploding by the defender off the dribble. Version one was similar to William. Hesitate at the foul line and explode to the basket. Version 2 was even more unusual. Mo would be dribbling, usually with her right hand and spin around clockwise 360 degrees with the ball in her right hand and burst by the defender who was usually lost in the spin cycle. If you recall, Danger threw the same move during a game earlier this year.

As far as the Huskies are concerned, if the ref doesn't call traveling, it's not traveling.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Mo had a couple of ankle-breaking moves that typically involved her sliding her hand slightly under the ball and holding it for a split second, resulting in a defender getting a little flat footed, followed by Mo exploding by the defender off the dribble. Version one was similar to William. Hesitate at the foul line and explode to the basket. Version 2 was even more unusual. Mo would be dribbling, usually with her right hand and spin around clockwise 360 degrees with the ball in her right hand and burst by the defender who was usually lost in the spin cycle. If you recall, Danger threw the same move during a game earlier this year.

As far as the Huskies are concerned, if the ref doesn't call traveling, it's not traveling.

Thanks---that was a great analysis of Mo's moves thanks.
However, any team that makes the decisions before the refs makes them---are at a disadvantage. No infraction of the rules is an infraction until it's called---you didn't speed if you were not stopped for speeding mentality.
Thanks again --

 

[willtalk]

In respect to the flagrant the rule itself is somewhat ambiguous. They are supposed to call any contact to the head ( above the shoulder ). Now it does not seem to specify the circumstances necessary for that contact to be a flagrant. I mean there are many instances where their might be contact to the head were a flagrant would not really be called. For example if a players hand or arm makes contact with another players head while they are wrestling for the ball either on the floor or after a rebound. Technically they are making contact with the head but logically it should not be a flagrant. In this case it appears they officials gave in to the pressure of the letter of the law. They were afraid not to make it a flagrant because their was contact with the chin.

A slow motion replay shows that the defender had their arms raised to defend against a pass. It was as they were running side by side that incidental contact took place between the defenders arm/wrist area and lou's chin. The defender was not swinging her arm ( in a round house way that creates force ) such as usually causes a flagrant to be called. Not much is possible when you are running with your hands raised. While technically it fit the criteria it goes against the purpose for flagrant's, which is to protect players from head injuries. This should have and would have been a no call except for Lou's dramatics. It sort of forced the officials to CYA themselves.

If you read my past posts you will discover that I have been a fan of MLS's game for quite some time. I have watched her play in high school and loved her game and skill. The one thing about her I did not like was her flopping. She had developed a reputation for that in California. I can sort of understand why she began to do that. When you are a great player you are going to be mugged by lesser opposition so it sort of makes you want to compensate via exaggeration. You have to protect yourself because often the officials will not. However, in MLS's case it has become a bad habit used to get calls. I for one have never been a fan of the tactics players use to get an advantage which unfortunately has become part of the "Game" so to speak. That includes learning how to hold or use other illegal tactics without being caught. . It seem to be the win at any cost mentality that is prevalent in today's society. It is one thing to sell a charge but is is another to grasp one's throat where no contact was made to sell a flagrant. She is too good a player to have to resort to that sort of thing. And more important what sort of message do we send to the younger generation when we encourage this sort of thing. Its unethical and flies in the face of what the term "Sport" used to mean. To be a good sport. Fairness honest competition. etc. How often do we selectively cherry pick the area's where we choose to be ethical and which areas we do not. Integrity requires consistency.

 

[calpedaler]

In respect to the flagrant the rule itself is somewhat ambiguous. They are supposed to call any contact to the head ( above the shoulder ). Now it does not seem to specify the circumstances necessary for that contact to be a flagrant. I mean there are many instances where their might be contact to the head were a flagrant would not really be called. For example if a players hand or arm makes contact with another players head while they are wrestling for the ball either on the floor or after a rebound. Technically they are making contact with the head but logically it should not be a flagrant. In this case it appears they officials gave in to the pressure of the letter of the law. They were afraid not to make it a flagrant because their was contact with the chin.

A slow motion replay shows that the defender had their arms raised to defend against a pass. It was as they were running side by side that incidental contact took place between the defenders arm/wrist area and lou's chin. The defender was not swinging her arm ( in a round house way that creates force ) such as usually causes a flagrant to be called. Not much is possible when you are running with your hands raised. While technically it fit the criteria it goes against the purpose for flagrant's, which is to protect players from head injuries. This should have and would have been a no call except for Lou's dramatics. It sort of forced the officials to CYA themselves.

If you read my past posts you will discover that I have been a fan of MLS's game for quite some time. I have watched her play in high school and loved her game and skill. The one thing about her I did not like was her flopping. She had developed a reputation for that in California. I can sort of understand why she began to do that. When you are a great player you are going to be mugged by lesser opposition so it sort of makes you want to compensate via exaggeration. You have to protect yourself because often the officials will not. However, in MLS's case it has become a bad habit used to get calls. I for one have never been a fan of the tactics players use to get an advantage which unfortunately has become part of the "Game" so to speak. That includes learning how to hold or use other illegal tactics without being caught. . It seem to be the win at any cost mentality that is prevalent in today's society. It is one thing to sell a charge but is is another to grasp one's throat where no contact was made to sell a flagrant. She is too good a player to have to resort to that sort of thing. And more important what sort of message do we send to the younger generation when we encourage this sort of thing. Its unethical and flies in the face of what the term "Sport" used to mean. To be a good sport. Fairness honest competition. etc. How often do we selectively cherry pick the area's where we choose to be ethical and which areas we do not. Integrity requires consistency.

Who's MLS?

 

[PAHuskeyFan]

Maybe I watched a different game, and replays but I feel very confident Lou was hit in the throat by Dillingham... no flop... as she was slammed in the face by Canada in the UCLA game. And the fact that 3 refs agreed to the call vs Dillingham, as did at least 2 of the TV announcers, makes me more sure of my beliefs about this.

 

[UConnNick]

Who's MLS?

I always thought it was a reference to the "Multiple Listing Service", the database realtors use to list and sell property.

 

[UConnNick]

Maybe I watched a different game, and replays but I feel very confident Lou was hit in the throat by Dillingham... no flop... as she was slammed in the face by Canada in the UCLA game. And the fact that 3 refs agreed to the call vs Dillingham, as did at least 2 of the TV announcers, makes me more sure of my beliefs about this.

She was clearly hit in the throat area. How this becomes some great moralistic search for truth, fairness, ethics and integrity, as willtalk seems to suggest, is beyond me. It's just a BB play, one of many in a BB game. Only one person knows what it really felt like, so all this conjecture and speculation about Lou's possible ulterior motives is just that, unsubstantiated conjecture and speculation with no basis in fact.

 

[wallman]

Interesting that someone brought up the double dribble as I have seen refs miss those calls in a frantic game and they do happen as the players themselves get overwhelmed.

Re the carry both MO and Canada could be called for those

The fourth foul on Williams was pretty bad and especially for her as it did affect how she had to play, but there was another call that could have gone against her.

The point being missed is that the Miss St player made contact with the throat, which is a much more fragile area and the player had been holding prior to the incident. I asked my ref buddy about this and he said that the whole situation was bad, the refs ultimately had to call the flagrant due to the contact with the throat as there was NO ball near either player. The guy said on review that it could be seen that she was holding her throat and then coughing after the play while still playing on. The NCAA ruled that it was indeed a flagrant 1. My buddy said that the refs screwed up many calls in the game but no ref wants to miss a flagrant due to all the protocol on injuries to players especially above the shoulders.

Anyone watching this call and a lot of other calls that have been reviewed over the year, would know that there has been a lot less contact that has been reviewed, some that was not even noticed by people watching the game. Those that are trying to make something of this, are people who were caught up in the moment and hoping for Uconn to lose. If it had happened to the other team they would be calling for an ejection of your player. On a funny note, he also said that was probably the only call they got right all game

 

[Waquoit]

I really like the posts above and would encourage everyone who cares to watch the last 2 minutes beginning with UConns 3 pt lead then Gabbys foul that was far from a foul. They couldve called it on Geno while he was on the bench??????? It wasnt close. The last 2 minutes were anti UConn calls. No sour grapes here watch first then decide. If you think Im wrong go back to the UCLA game with UConn ahead by double digits and see how many times the refs stopped the game for review . Not saying it was anti UConn but why during the UCLA game and not in the Miss St game???????

There were many factors that lead to UConn losing. Getting jobbed by the refs doesn't even make my list.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Maybe I watched a different game, and replays but I feel very confident Lou was hit in the throat by Dillingham... no flop... as she was slammed in the face by Canada in the UCLA game. And the fact that 3 refs agreed to the call vs Dillingham, as did at least 2 of the TV announcers, makes me more sure of my beliefs about this.

Yes, the replay makes it clear she was hit in the throat. Willtalk must have been watching a different play.

 

[stamfordhusky]

In respect to the flagrant the rule itself is somewhat ambiguous. They are supposed to call any contact to the head ( above the shoulder ). Now it does not seem to specify the circumstances necessary for that contact to be a flagrant. I mean there are many instances where their might be contact to the head were a flagrant would not really be called. For example if a players hand or arm makes contact with another players head while they are wrestling for the ball either on the floor or after a rebound. Technically they are making contact with the head but logically it should not be a flagrant. In this case it appears they officials gave in to the pressure of the letter of the law. They were afraid not to make it a flagrant because their was contact with the chin.

There are six reasons for a flagrant 1, per NCAA rules. NONE of the six mentions "contact to the head." Your argument completely ignores the rules.

 

[PAHuskeyFan]

She was clearly hit in the throat area. How this becomes some great moralistic search for truth, fairness, ethics and integrity, as willtalk seems to suggest, is beyond me. It's just a BB play, one of many in a BB game. Only one person knows what it really felt like, so all this conjecture and speculation about Lou's possible ulterior motives is just that, unsubstantiated conjecture and speculation with no basis in fact.

Thank You!!! I was beginning to think I missed something in the game. I have been hit in the throat, and it isn't a nice feeling. I do not believe Lou was being "dramatic"... the reaction was instantaneous and clearly she was in pain. Just like the forearm to the face by Canada that was never called. If I am wrong, and Lou someday admits she flopped, I am going encourage her to talk to the UCONN Drama Department for a role in their next production.

 

[the Q]

Absolutely the correct call.

The problem was how they missed it in real time. Bad look for everyone.

I believe MSU scored on the ensuing possession as well, so it really hurt UConn there.

 

[JoePgh]

There are six reasons for a flagrant 1, per NCAA rules. NONE of the six mentions "contact to the head." Your argument completely ignores the rules.

If you are referring to the six points quoted in your earlier post, the language that you quoted says that those are "examples" of a Flagrant 1, and that Flagrant 1 calls are not limited to those examples. So, per the letter of the law, the officials should not feel limited to those six specific situations.

In this case, you have contact to the throat, away from the ball, not part of an attempt to make a play on the ball. I don't think Dillingham intentionally hit Lou, but I do think her arm motion was careless and out of control. The fact that the contact occurred with the hand or forearm rather than the elbow should (I would think) be insignificant. It appears to me to qualify as a Flagrant 1, and it appears that most objective people agree.

Why was it not called in real time? I suspect that the officials were swallowing their whistle to avoid criticism for not "letting the players decide the game". Then, after the video review, they realized that their superiors who reviewed the game would undoubtedly deem it a flagrant and mark them down for having missed it. So they did what they could to remediate the situation, albeit with great reluctance.

 

[PAHuskeyFan]

If you are referring to the six points quoted in your earlier post, the language that you quoted says that those are "examples" of a Flagrant 1, and that Flagrant 1 calls are not limited to those examples. So, per the letter of the law, the officials should not feel limited to those six specific situations.

In this case, you have contact to the throat, away from the ball, not part of an attempt to make a play on the ball. I don't think Dillingham intentionally hit Lou, but I do think her arm motion was careless and out of control. The fact that the contact occurred with the hand or forearm rather than the elbow should (I would think) be insignificant. It appears to me to qualify as a Flagrant 1, and it appears that most objective people agree.

Why was it not called in real time? I suspect that the officials were swallowing their whistle to avoid criticism for not "letting the players decide the game". Then, after the video review, they realized that their superiors who reviewed the game would undoubtedly deem it a flagrant and mark them down for having missed it. So they did what they could to remediate the situation, albeit with great reluctance.

no one in a position of responsibility and authority, such as a referee, should every be worried or "reluctant" to do the RIGHT thing.