What was the correct ruling on the flagrant?

[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.

 

[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.