Sorry, Mary Murphy. This foul should not be shown on the referees' highlight film as an intentional foul. It should be shown as a disqualifying foul, and to highlight the need for officials to know the rules.
The foul was by rule a disqualifying foul (no judgement required) I would challenge the officials (Nicole Leon, Richard Waters, Bob Scofield) as to why they called it only an intentional foul (if in fact they did).
What I believe led up to it: Murekatete was frustrated that Brink's arms were in her neck area, as Murekatete tried to get in front of Brink, while Brink crossed the lane. (After the intentional foul, Murekatete seemed to indicate that Brink was swinging her elbow. The video shows Brink did not swing her elbows.)
While we cannot know what Murekatete was thinking, her actions are consistent with her thinking she was being fouled, getting angry, and taking it out on the opponent, and then complaining that she was being fouled.
Regarding Brink's head motion, I see two motions. The first motion is exactly what physics would predict for a hard blow to her sternum. Her chest region is pushed back, causing her shirt to flap as it loses contact with her body., As her chest goes back, so does her spine and neck.. You see the top of her head apparently going in the opposite direction (toward the blow) since the backward motion of her neck plus inertia would cause her head to rotate around its center of gravity, causing the top of the head going toward the blow.
I agree that as the pain hits her, she reacts to it about 0.2 seconds after impact. Her body and neck stiffens for an instant, initially straightening up with her head going back, and then her body rolls away from her attacker, and she collapses to the ground, one hand coming to where she was hit while the other helps to keep her from falling on her face. Oh yea, there is the scream of pain (heard in the live view at the beginning). (I find it fascinating to wonder about how many millions of years it took a species to develop reflexes to an attack like this.)
This is very different from the attempts to draw a charge where the blocking player throws her head back at being touched, leading to the body going backward.
I'll also note Brink does a quick rub of where she was hit at 1:16 in that clip.
What should have been the ruling:
Regarding the term "excessive", the action in this case is DEFINED as excessive, and as extreme.
Murekatete's foul needs only to satisfy one of the two clauses in 10-6.7, but it satisfies both.
Then, by 10-10.16b, it was a disqualifying foul.
(my emphasis)
The official review should have considered whether this was a (one-person) fight. I would agree the foul was non-combative, and so was not part of a (one-person) fight.
------
I believe some people here feel that this was a combative strike. I can understand that viewpoint, but I don't agree with it.
That would raise the event to a (one-person) fight. A fight has multi-game consequences, as some wondered about.
YES, a player disqualified for a (first) fight would be suspended for the next game as well.
A player disqualified for a second fight is suspended for the remainder of the year (including post-season play, or potentially into the next year).
Note that a player does not have to strike a player to be suspended for fighting. Provoking another player (resulting in a fight) or attempting to hit another player constitute fighting.
The conference CAN change certain things about a fight: It can change the players who are charged with fighting. It can make the penalties more (but not less) severe for the fight.
The foul was by rule a disqualifying foul (no judgement required) I would challenge the officials (Nicole Leon, Richard Waters, Bob Scofield) as to why they called it only an intentional foul (if in fact they did).
What I believe led up to it: Murekatete was frustrated that Brink's arms were in her neck area, as Murekatete tried to get in front of Brink, while Brink crossed the lane. (After the intentional foul, Murekatete seemed to indicate that Brink was swinging her elbow. The video shows Brink did not swing her elbows.)
While we cannot know what Murekatete was thinking, her actions are consistent with her thinking she was being fouled, getting angry, and taking it out on the opponent, and then complaining that she was being fouled.
Regarding Brink's head motion, I see two motions. The first motion is exactly what physics would predict for a hard blow to her sternum. Her chest region is pushed back, causing her shirt to flap as it loses contact with her body., As her chest goes back, so does her spine and neck.. You see the top of her head apparently going in the opposite direction (toward the blow) since the backward motion of her neck plus inertia would cause her head to rotate around its center of gravity, causing the top of the head going toward the blow.
I agree that as the pain hits her, she reacts to it about 0.2 seconds after impact. Her body and neck stiffens for an instant, initially straightening up with her head going back, and then her body rolls away from her attacker, and she collapses to the ground, one hand coming to where she was hit while the other helps to keep her from falling on her face. Oh yea, there is the scream of pain (heard in the live view at the beginning). (I find it fascinating to wonder about how many millions of years it took a species to develop reflexes to an attack like this.)
This is very different from the attempts to draw a charge where the blocking player throws her head back at being touched, leading to the body going backward.
I'll also note Brink does a quick rub of where she was hit at 1:16 in that clip.
What should have been the ruling:
Regarding the term "excessive", the action in this case is DEFINED as excessive, and as extreme.
Murekatete's foul needs only to satisfy one of the two clauses in 10-6.7, but it satisfies both.
Then, by 10-10.16b, it was a disqualifying foul.
(my emphasis)
Quote:Rule 10. Section 6. Art. 7. The following shall be considered not only excessive, but extreme,
swinging:
a. When arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung about while using the shoulders as
pivots, and the speed of the extended arm(s) and elbow(s) exceeds that of
the rest of the body as it rotates on the hips or on the pivot foot; or
b. When the speed and vigor with which the arm(s) and elbow(s) are swung
is such that injury could result if another player was contacted.
...
Rule 10. Section 10. Art. 16. Illegal contact caused by the swinging of the elbow(s) that:
b. Is excessive per Rule 10-6.7 is a disqualifying foul.
The official review should have considered whether this was a (one-person) fight. I would agree the foul was non-combative, and so was not part of a (one-person) fight.
Quote:Rule 10. Section 15. Art. 2. A fight is a confrontation involving one or more players, coaches or
other team personnel wherein (but not limited to) a fist, hand, arm, foot, knee,
or leg is used to combatively strike the other individual.
------
I believe some people here feel that this was a combative strike. I can understand that viewpoint, but I don't agree with it.
That would raise the event to a (one-person) fight. A fight has multi-game consequences, as some wondered about.
YES, a player disqualified for a (first) fight would be suspended for the next game as well.
A player disqualified for a second fight is suspended for the remainder of the year (including post-season play, or potentially into the next year).
Note that a player does not have to strike a player to be suspended for fighting. Provoking another player (resulting in a fight) or attempting to hit another player constitute fighting.
The conference CAN change certain things about a fight: It can change the players who are charged with fighting. It can make the penalties more (but not less) severe for the fight.