What was the correct ruling on the flagrant?

[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.