WNBA Reporter Claims the Cheap Shot Artists Fouling Caitlin Clark Are Actually the Real Victims of Racism

Oh, brother … where to even start with this one?

Look, to preface all this “vitriol,” I do not know Noa Dalzell, the senior WNBA reporter for SB Nation. The following is not an attack on Dalzell, but the idiotic ideas she presents as fact.

Dalzell kicked something of a hornet’s nest on Sunday when she put out an opinion piece for SB Nation that effectively tried to excuse the cheap shots that precocious Indiana Fever rookie Caitlin Clark has been enduring in her premier season.

And in fairness, if you want to argue that these cheap shots against Clark are actually just common fouls (more on that later), that’s one thing.

But Dalzell — a white woman based on her social media pictures — took things one gigantically dumb step too far by claiming that a combination of “sexism, racism, and homophobia” against Clark’s attackers is the real issue at hand here.

Entitled, “The vitriol WNBA players face for fouling Caitlin Clark is unacceptable — and racist,” the piece actually begins reasonably enough.

Chicago Sky guard Diamond DeShields, who came under scrutiny for a flagrant foul against Clark on Friday night, recently shared some genuinely nasty messages she received for the hit. According to Fox News, those comments included references to the benign tumor that was pressing against her spine, which she had surgically removed.

Dalzell argued that those despicable comments about DeShields’ tumor were beyond the pale, and she’s right.

But how is that racist? (Spoiler: It’s not. Dalzell simply seems to have just recently discovered the raw evil of certain people hiding behind a keyboard.)

“I’ve watched a lot of basketball in my life, and I’ve also played a lot of basketball,” Dalzell argued. “This foul was nothing to write home about — just a regular shove; likely the result of both DeShields’s frustration (the Sky were on the brink of dropping five consecutive games) and the fact that Clark was about to score if she wasn’t stopped.”

The foul, which was a shoulder check to Clark’s spine while she had her back to DeShields (hardly a “nothing to write home about” foul, not even in football) was not “just a regular shove.”

It was a cheap shot and not a basketball move whatsoever. Where was the play for the ball in that “regular shove”? DeShields’ foul was akin to the late ’80s Detroit Pistons’ “Jordan Rules” — cheap shots meant to ensure a player (a black player in Jordan’s case) never gets going.

How did the Pistons stop MJ?

The Jordan Rules. #TheLastDance pic.twitter.com/G8UchQU260

— ESPN (@espn) April 27, 2020

(And nobody complained about racism when it came to “The Jordan Rules,” despite them targeting a black man.)

Dalzell also tried to defend Sky goon Chennedy Carter (perhaps the original Clark fouler), despite the fact that Carter has literally bounced around the league because she’s a headcase.

Carter was allegedly harassed outside a hotel for her foul (again, not racist in and of itself, Ms. Dalzell), but even that point in the SB Nation piece fails to mention important context about this alleged “harassment.”

Dalzell then tried a classic bit of whataboutism by pointing the finger at Clark and effectively saying, “Look! She commits hard fouls too!”

So let this be proof that Caitlin Clark commits these type of fouls too. Going for the block but hits Jordin Canada upside the head. pic.twitter.com/ve8W2QZ1FM

— HoopHer (@HoopHerSpeaks) August 27, 2024

Hilariously, the video Dalzell quoted (the same one above) stated: “So let this be proof that Caitlin Clark commits these type of fouls too. Going for the block but hits Jordin Canada upside the head.”

The glorious buffoons don’t even realize they’re nuking they’re own argument. Look at what precedes the hit “upside the head.”

By the post’s own admission, Clark was “[g]oing for the block.”

That’s a basketball move! The stunts pulled by Carter and DeShields wouldn’t even be reasonably considered football moves — and certainly not a play for the basketball.

“There are lots of hard fouls in the NBA too, but they seldom become a major news story, especially when the player on the receiving end walks away just fine. It begs the question — why the vitriol? Why the outrage?” Dalzell asked in another wonderful bit of whataboutism.

The difference in this case is a simple one (that transgender advocates probably won’t like): Men and women are different. It’s the same reason that a man typically has a viscerally different reaction to watching a woman get punched in the face versus a man getting punched in the face.

Dalzell, after introducing “misogynoir — a term that describes the unique prejudice faced by black women,” then pivoted to the left’s favorite boogeyman: the amorphous “right-wing”… whatever that means.

“Many in right-wing media have latched onto her as a publicly apolitical, straight-presenting white woman, and perpetuated the belief that any black and/or queer athlete who fouls her or critiques her is jealous, or vengeful, because of the the fame, money, and attention she has received,” Dalzell argued.

Hilariously, Dalzell even called Connecticut Sun defensive ace DiJonai Carrington “one of my favorite defensive players of all time” on X, but doesn’t realize that Carrington literally came off as whiny, jealous troglodyte in an unhinged rant about Clark back in June.

Dalzell also tried to paint Sheryl Swoopes — WNBA legend, noted Clark hater and alleged bully — in a sympathetic light.

Curious how Dalzell just conveniently forgot all of that context because “white woman bad.”

Again, this writer does not know Noa Dalzell from Rachel Dolezal, but both of these women need to cool it with the race politicking.

Dalzell lamented throughout her piece that the media was sensationalizing these fouls against Clark (“racism!”), and yet wants to sensationalize the plight of these black women (Dalzell argued Clark can defend herself … One could argue the same idea should be applied to the other adult women in the WNBA) because of some misguided idea of “white privilege.”

It’s pathetic, misinformed, disingenuous and needs to be called out.