WNBA thread… 28.5 ain’t your pay cut

[MeanGreenATO]

While working in this capacity, Christine clumsily asked Dijonai a question about if she tried to injure Caitlin. With her follow-up question, she essentially called Dijonai a liar. Dijonai handled it professionally, but I can see why the union was upset about a line of questioning from THAT person that will only paint one of their athletes in a negative light in an era where their Black athletes have increasingly become online targets for a certain demographic.

This is a very good point and I agree with this. I understand why the follow-up was an issue. But the initial line of questioning was well within bounds, IMO.

 

[UPChip]

Another amazing thing throughout all this: Why isn't there a WNBA rule prohibiting artificial nails, or nails of any composition more than a minimal length beyond the fingers?? That should be an instantaneous no brsiner rules change.

Potentially but that would have to be introduced very carefully -- we've already seen examples of prohibiting/discriminating against certain hairstyles in the workplace being portrayed as cultural discrimination and legislated against as such. Obviously, it's a different situation with something like artificial nails since that's much more of a choice than hair texture, but you're going to go down a very thorny path if you're seen attempting to limit the expression of Black women, especially when it will be portrayed as being for the protection of/at the behest of a white woman.

 

[BTExpress]

"Did you intentionally try to stab someone in the eye with your sharp fingernail?" is an appropriate line of questioning?

 

[Starman]

Potentially but that would have to be introduced very carefully -- we've already seen examples of prohibiting/discriminating against certain hairstyles in the workplace being portrayed as cultural discrimination and legislated against as such. Obviously, it's a different situation with something like artificial nails since that's much more of a choice than hair texture, but you're going to go down a very thorny path if you're seen attempting to limit the expression of Black women, especially when it will be portrayed as being for the protection of/at the behest of a white woman.

Sharp overlong nails are an injury threat to all players of all races.

 

[MisterCreosote]

"Did you intentionally try to stab someone in the eye with your sharp fingernail?" is an appropriate line of questioning?

It is when you subscribe to the narrative that Brennan clearly subscribes to.

 

[Junkie]

It is when you subscribe to the narrative that Brennan clearly subscribes to.

So this is Brennan's narrative? My question would be, why did it take Christine Brennan, the national champion of women's sports, to ask this question? The play, even if unintentional, at least looks very much intentional, especially when slowed down. If this were an isolated incident -- up to and including laughing with a teammate later -- maybe questioning it would deserve scrutiny. But this shirt has been going on all year. Michael Jordan got less abuse from the Bad Boy Piston teams than Clark has gotten all year, as if some league-wide initiative hazing had to take place for the hotshot rookie. Of course someone needed to ask if it was intentional and of course the other player involved was going to say it wasn't. So Brennan et al should just accept that answer and move on? Are there any journalists left here? Brennan asked perfectly appropriate questions. There were more to be asked, but society has deemed them inappropriate, so we're left to wonder. In this case, the W doth protest too much, methinks.

 

[MisterCreosote]

So this is Brennan's narrative? My question would be, why did it take Christine Brennan, the national champion of women's sports, to ask this question? The play, even if unintentional, at least looks very much intentional, especially when slowed down. If this were an isolated incident -- up to and including laughing with a teammate later -- maybe questioning it would deserve scrutiny. But this shirt has been going on all year. Michael Jordan got less abuse from the Bad Boy Piston teams than Clark has gotten all year, as if some league-wide initiative hazing had to take place for the hotshot rookie. Of course someone needed to ask if it was intentional and of course the other player involved was going to say it wasn't. So Brennan et al should just accept that answer and move on? Are there any journalists left here? Brennan asked perfectly appropriate questions. There were more to be asked, but society has deemed them inappropriate, so we're left to wonder. In this case, the W doth protest too much, methinks.

They were laughing after Mabrey hit a huge 3 and did the Carmelo Anthony 3-pointer celebration. That was reported in several places, including Brennan's own publication.

The narrative that there has been some organized, season-long, league-wide hazing initiative against Clark is patently ridiculous. Some calls may have been questionable, and a few may have been hard fouls, but certainly no harder than others that happen during the course of a physical game. That doesn't take into account that Clark flops more than LeBron James. That also doesn't take into account that Brennan is writing a book about how Clark is "saving" the sport from itself.

I'm not a journalist anymore, and I'm ashamed that I spent as much time in the industry as I did. The question was asked of both players and they both said it wasn't intentional. The "But you LAUGHED two and a half quarters later so you must be LYING!" is as ridiculous a follow-up as I've heard.

 

[Junkie]

The narrative that there has been some organized, season-long, league-wide hazing initiative against Clark is patently ridiculous. Some calls may have been questionable, and a few may have been hard fouls, but certainly no harder than others that happen during the course of a physical game. That doesn't take into account that Clark flops more than LeBron James. That also doesn't take into account that Brennan is writing a book about how Clark is "saving" the sport from itself.

I'm not a journalist anymore, and I'm ashamed that I spent as much time in the industry as I did. The question was asked of both players and they both said it wasn't intentional. The "But you LAUGHED two and a half quarters later so you must be LYING!" is as ridiculous a follow-up as I've heard.

No, that's not the narrative, which is why I used the words "as if." If the kind of stuff that happened to Clark all season happens during the course of most games, someone would have put up a highlight tape of that, don't you think? Fact is, it doesn't happen to everyone. The blatant cheap shots we've seen all season have been pretty consistent.

Sorry you're not a journalist anymore. You must've been awesome at it. Especially given your use of quotation marks.

 

[MisterCreosote]

I was an awesome journalist.

 

[franticscribe]

I've watched the Fever for years and have never seen a player take a beating over the course of a season the way Clark did this year. Yeah she flops a lot and yeah she invites a little bit of it with the way she plays, but the idea that what we saw with her this season was normal is strange to me.

I'm glad her rookie season is over. I look forward to watching her play next year after she's had a regular off season and more practice with her teammates. Perhaps naively, I keep hoping this narrative will die down a little as I do expect her to be less of a target for the egregious stuff next season. Clearly she's earned respect from a lot of other players in the W that I don't think was there before the Olympic break.

 

[DanielSimpsonDay]

Sharp overlong nails are an injury threat to all players of all races.

all eyes matter

 

[BTExpress]

Clark was flagrantly fouled six times this year in 40 games. Once every 6.66 games.

In 2023, Satou Sabally (black) was flagrantly fouled four times in 38 games. Once every 9.5 games.

In 2022, Aerial Powers (black) was flagrantly fouled five times in 35 games. Once every 7 games.