Chennedy Carter penalized for flagrant foul against Clark
Clark averaging impressive stats in first season with Indiana Fever
League considering increasing flagrant foul calls to protect players
WNBA investigating multiple incidents of hard fouls targeting Clark
WNBA's 2024 season sees trend of hard fouls against rookie Caitlin Clark
The WNBA season of 2024 has seen a notable trend in hard fouls against rookie standout Caitlin Clark. The latest incident occurred during a game between the Washington Mystics and the Connecticut Sun, where Chennedy Carter of the Chicago Sky was penalized for a flagrant foul against Clark.
Clark, who is averaging impressive statistics in her first season with the Indiana Fever, has been subjected to multiple hard fouls that some believe are unnecessary targeting actions. The WNBA is currently investigating these incidents and considering increasing the frequency of flagrant foul calls to protect players from unfair treatment.
The intensity on the court has been a topic of discussion in the league, with many rookies experiencing more than their fair share of
Some players' dislike for Clark may be due to her fame, money, attention or being the hotshot rookie who needs to prove herself
Accuracy
Chennedy Carter threw a shoulder into Clark, knocking her to the ground during a game
Angel Reese cheered the move on from the bench
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as the author only reports details that support his position of there being 'anti-Caitlin sentiment' in the WNBA. He quotes Chennedy Carter's actions and words towards Caitlin Clark without mentioning any positive interactions or statements from other players. The author also makes assumptions about motivations for this supposed 'anti-Clark sentiment', such as fame, money, attention, and physical play style.
It’s pretty obvious that some WNBA players aren’t too fond of Caitlin Clark.
Carter’s teammate, Angel Reese, an old Clark rival from college, cheered the move on from the bench.
Maybe it’s her fame. Maybe it’s her money. Maybe it’s the attention she commands.
Or maybe it’s just that Clark plays a hard, physical and in-your-face game herself.
Fallacies
(80%)
The author makes several informal fallacies throughout the article. Firstly, he uses an appeal to emotion when describing the 'spice' and 'shoving' between Caitlin Clark and her opponents as adding interest to things for fans. He also uses a hasty generalization when stating that 'some WNBA players aren’t too fond of Caitlin Clark.' While it is clear that there is tension between certain players, it is not accurate to say that all WNBA players hold this sentiment towards Clark. Lastly, the author makes a false dilemma when suggesting that either fans want to see 'hard, physical and in-your-face' play or they don't care about women's sports. This oversimplifies the fanbase and ignores the possibility that fans can appreciate both aspects.
][Besides, Indiana (2-9) is terrible.][/
But it’s just like, ‘Respond, calm down and let your play do the talking. It is what it is. It’s a physical game, go make the free throw and then execute on offense.’ Feel like that’s what we did.’
Bias
(15%)
The author expresses a clear bias towards the physical confrontation between Caitlin Clark and Chennedy Carter, describing it as 'shoving' and 'spice' that adds interest to the WNBA season. The author also takes a personal tone when discussing Carter's motivations for her actions against Clark, implying that she is jealous of Clark's fame and attention.
Carter, for her part, didn’t want to discuss it with the media but made her points on social media. ‘Beside three point shooting what does she bring to the table man’, Carter asked in a post. Later she embraced the backlash of those siding with Clark.
It flared up in the biggest way Saturday, when Chicago’s Chennedy Carter threw a shoulder into an unsuspecting Clark, knocking Clark to the ground.
Maybe it’s her fame. Maybe it’s her money. Maybe it’s the attention she commands.
The fact that Golden State’s Draymond Green weighed in saying the Fever need to sign an ‘enforcer’ to protect their star – like Green has done for Steph Curry who was constantly physically challenged – and most people agreed is its own small victory for women’s sports legitimacy.
What would make it even better is if everyone embraced what appears to be Caitlin Clark’s mindset – this isn’t a big deal.
Caitlin Clark has been subject to multiple hard and sometimes flagrant fouls in her first season.
The WNBA is investigating the intentionality of some of these fouls and considering increasing the frequency of flagrant foul calls to protect players from unfair treatment.
Accuracy
The Connecticut Sun are undefeated in the 2024 WNBA season.
Caitlin Clark, a rookie player for the Indiana Fever, has been subject to multiple hard and sometimes flagrant fouls in her first season.
Chennedy Carter was penalized with a Flagrant 1 foul for a hard hit on Caitlin Clark.
Deception
(70%)
The article contains editorializing and selective reporting. The author expresses her opinion that the WNBA referees should be more willing to hand out flagrant fouls, implying that they are not doing so currently. She also focuses on specific incidents of hard fouls against rookies, while ignoring instances where rookies may have committed similar or worse fouls. The author's opinions and selective reporting do not provide a complete or accurate representation of the situation.
The Sun have only made their team that much deeper in terms of talent.
The WNBA is a physical league, and rookies will certainly have to adjust to the new level of competition, but these situations also showcase how WNBA referees should be more willing to hand out flagrant fouls. These calls aren’t to ‘protect’ Clark or any rookie for that matter, but to simply call out the difference between a hard play and an intentional shot at an unsuspecting player.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes an appeal to authority when she states that 'The WNBA is a physical league, and rookies will certainly have to adjust to the new level of competition.' This statement implies that the physicality of the league justifies rough play towards rookies. Additionally, there are instances of inflammatory rhetoric such as 'These situations also showcase how WNBA referees should be more willing to hand out flagrant fouls.' and 'The Sun have looked very dangerous.' These statements are not objective and could be perceived as biased.
]The WNBA is a physical league, and rookies will certainly have to adjust to the new level of competition.[
These situations also showcase how WNBA referees should be more willing to hand out flagrant fouls.
Discussions about Caitlin Clark often go beyond basketball and focus on topics such as race, culture, privilege and entitlement.
Chennedy Carter's hip check on Caitlin Clark during a WNBA game was upgraded to a Flagrant 1.
Clark is not yet a superstar in terms of performance but is a national draw for the WNBA.
Accuracy
Some people believe that Clark needs protection as a ‘cash cow’ bringing eyeballs to the league, but this is a misguided belief.
Deception
(30%)
The author makes editorializing statements and uses emotional manipulation by expressing frustration and exhaustion towards the media's coverage of a flagrant foul in the WNBA. He also engages in selective reporting by focusing on one specific incident while ignoring others.
Can we calm down and take a breath? It was a hip check; repeat ... a hip check!
The Tribune editorial board used its institutional voice to declare that the foul ‘would have been seen as an assault’ had it happened outside of a sporting event.
Then again, we’re talking Caitlin Clark. Truth is, the focus on her has always been about more than basketball.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author makes an appeal to authority when referencing the reactions of Good Morning America and The Chicago Tribune. He also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing these reactions as 'exhausting' and 'nauseating'. The author also engages in dichotomous depiction by portraying those reacting to the flagrant foul as overreacting, while implying that his own reaction is reasonable.
> Later Monday, the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board used its institutional voice to declare that the foul ‘would have been seen as an assault’ had it happened outside of a sporting event.
The WNBA confirmed that Chennedy Carter’s foul on Caitlin Clark from yesterday’s game has been upgraded to a Flagrant 1, per @alexaphilippou.
Discussions about whether she can live up to expectations often devolve into areas that have nothing to do with basketball, with people using her as a symbol to support whatever non-basketball narrative they believe in. Her name has been weaponized, in a sense.
