The Flagrant Foul Debate: Was Angel Reese’s Play a Basketball Move or Not?

The WNBA has been abuzz with controversy after Angel Reese’s flagrant foul on Caitlin Clark in the Chicago Sky-Indiana Fever rematch. The play has sparked a heated debate, with many weighing in on whether Reese’s move was a legitimate basketball play or a malicious act.

WNBA action

ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith was one of the many voices chiming in on the debate. On “First Take,” Smith agreed with Reese that the play was, in fact, a basketball play. However, he also acknowledged that the referees’ decision to upgrade the foul to a flagrant-1 was correct, citing the hit to Clark’s head as the reason.

“I will say this: It was a basketball play,” Smith said. “Yes, Angel Reese is right about that. But what they called against her in terms of upgrading it to a flagrant-1 is exactly what they would’ve done in the NBA as well.”

Smith also hinted that the referees may be watching Reese and the Sky closely, especially when playing against Clark. He referenced an incident in June where Chennedy Carter bumped or shoved Clark to the floor, and how Reese had reacted to it.

Clark herself reiterated Reese’s point after the game, saying she believed the play was a basketball move with no malicious intent. “Just a part of basketball. It is what it is. Just trying to make a play on the ball and get the block. It happens,” Clark said to reporters.

Caitlin Clark in action

The debate surrounding the play has sparked a larger conversation about the WNBA and its rules. As the league continues to grow in popularity, incidents like this will undoubtedly continue to spark controversy and debate.

WNBA logo

What do you think? Was Angel Reese’s play a legitimate basketball move, or did she cross a line? Let us know in the comments!