[crackpot]

I guess most of you have heard about Djonai's ejection on Sunday and her subsequent post.
   "Chicago’s DiJonai Carrington ejected for flagrant 2 foul on Fever’s Cunningham and posts ‘white privilege’"
Here is a good stilll image of the foul.

As the game was being broadcast, the announcers both immediately expected the initial foul call to be upgraded to a flagrant 2.  As I recall, they said they would be surprised if it wasn't upgraded.

I don't know the WNBA rules, so I won't say much more than the fact that as Cunningham was in the air, one of Carrington's arms came across Cunningham's face.  One might argue that Carrington wasn't intentionally causing more contact than one might normally do.  The force on Cunningham's face wasn't so great as to, say, break a nose, but the fact that the head was impacted while she was in the air would be enough to risk the shooter coming down awkwardly.

So I feel that the ejection was easily warranted, but I'm not overly upset by the foul.
It is a real shame for Carrington. She was playing well. she was 3 for 3 (8 points) in 3 minutes at that early point of the game.

What does disturb me more is Carrington's post (which is still up 13 hours later, with no subsequent post).

Assuming this was about her ejection, I believe her post is totally unwarranted.  I would be concerned that while most will view it as a one-off pout of a petulant player., others, in an out of the WNBA, may make it a flash point of racial strife. 

Incidentally, Caitlin Clark got a technical in third quarter for contact with an official.  This would have made her sit out a game.  AIUI, the league reviewed the call and reversed it, presumably because it wasn't intentional contact.  Here is video.

News reports indicate that Carrington made her post "minutes after" the ejection in the first quarter.  If there isn't a rule for the officials, there should be one that they do not look at or be informed of social media or emails (etc) between the start and end of the game.  Imagine if the officials had seen that post (or news reports of it) at half time, how that might influence their calls in the second half.

The flagrant 2 (under this year's rules) was warranted. However, Cunningham not getting a flagrant 1 is ridiculous. I assumed this is what Carrington meant. I was watching the game, and Cunningham strutting around afterward like she'd just won defeated her fiercest enemy was quite disturbing. I did laugh when I found out that she had the worst ever +/- ever recorded in a WNBA game. Carrington, OTOH, came in and provided quite a spark for the Sky for the mere 3 minutes or so she was in.

[crackpot]

I guess most of you have heard about Djonai's ejection on Sunday and her subsequent post.
   "Chicago’s DiJonai Carrington ejected for flagrant 2 foul on Fever’s Cunningham and posts ‘white privilege’"
Here is a good stilll image of the foul.

As the game was being broadcast, the announcers both immediately expected the initial foul call to be upgraded to a flagrant 2.  As I recall, they said they would be surprised if it wasn't upgraded.

I don't know the WNBA rules, so I won't say much more than the fact that as Cunningham was in the air, one of Carrington's arms came across Cunningham's face.  One might argue that Carrington wasn't intentionally causing more contact than one might normally do.  The force on Cunningham's face wasn't so great as to, say, break a nose, but the fact that the head was impacted while she was in the air would be enough to risk the shooter coming down awkwardly.

So I feel that the ejection was easily warranted, but I'm not overly upset by the foul.
It is a real shame for Carrington. She was playing well. she was 3 for 3 (8 points) in 3 minutes at that early point of the game.

What does disturb me more is Carrington's post (which is still up 13 hours later, with no subsequent post).

Assuming this was about her ejection, I believe her post is totally unwarranted.  I would be concerned that while most will view it as a one-off pout of a petulant player., others, in an out of the WNBA, may make it a flash point of racial strife. 

Incidentally, Caitlin Clark got a technical in third quarter for contact with an official.  This would have made her sit out a game.  AIUI, the league reviewed the call and reversed it, presumably because it wasn't intentional contact.  Here is video.

News reports indicate that Carrington made her post "minutes after" the ejection in the first quarter.  If there isn't a rule for the officials, there should be one that they do not look at or be informed of social media or emails (etc) between the start and end of the game.  Imagine if the officials had seen that post (or news reports of it) at half time, how that might influence their calls in the second half.

The flagrant 2 (under this year's rules) was warranted. However, Cunningham not getting a flagrant 1 is ridiculous. I assumed this is what Carrington meant. I was watching the game, and Cunningham strutting around afterward like she'd just won defeated her fiercest enemy was quite disturbing. I did laugh when I found out that she had the worst ever +/- ever recorded in a WNBA game. Carrington, OTOH, came in and provided quite a spark for the Sky for the mere 3 minutes or so she was in.