Richmond vs. Charlotte End of Game

[MathReferee]

Can someone please post the end of this game from today? I am just watching the gamecast on ESPN and Charlotte was down 3 with 6 seconds left. Richmond fouled to give Charlotte the FT's instead of 3 attempt to tie, but then a Richmond player received a technical after the first FT. Charlotte made all four FT's to go up 1, but then Richmond coach earned another T. So far 8 FT's in last 6 seconds for Charlotte, 2 from original foul and another 6 from T's I think. Crazy March!

[zebraman]

I was watching the game. Here is what I think I saw:

Charlotte down 3. Richmond fouls the Charlotte player with about 4 seconds left to put Charlotte at the line (to avoid a 3-point shot which could have tied the game). After the first free throw goes through the hoop (dead ball period), a Richmond player (who was battling for rebounding position) shoves a Charlotte player. It was too obvious to ignore and the official correctly called a technical foul. Charlotte still down by 2 at this point.

After the two successful free throws for the T and the second free throw for the common foul (also successful), Charlotte was up by one and was given the ball at halfcourt (shouldn't it have been Richmond's ball after the four FT's because of POI?). **Thanks to Rich for reminding me of the dead ball contact procedure in his post below** Charlotte inbounded and was fouled immediately. The Charlotte player threw up a 3-pointer after he got bumped and the official ruled a 3-point shooting foul. At that point, the Richmond coach went through the roof and got two T's leading to an ejection.

Quite the ending. :-)

[Spence]

Video of the play.

Charlotte Beat Richmond in One of the Craziest Endings Ever, From Down 3 to Up 5 Thanks to Technicals in Final Five Seconds | The Big Lead

[gslefeb]

Richmondcharlotte - YouTube

[Rich]

Originally Posted by zebraman

I was watching the game. Here is what I think I saw:

Charlotte down 3. Richmond fouls the Charlotte player with about 4 seconds left to put Charlotte at the line (to avoid a 3-point shot which could have tied the game). After the first free throw goes through the hoop (dead ball period), a Richmond player (who was battling for rebounding position) shoves a Charlotte player. It was too obvious to ignore and the official correctly called a technical foul. Charlotte still down by 2 at this point.

After the two successful free throws for the T and the second free throw for the common foul (also successful), Charlotte was up by one and was given the ball at halfcourt (shouldn't it have been Richmond's ball after the four FT's because of POI?). Charlotte inbounded and was fouled immediately. The Charlotte player threw up a 3-pointer after he got bumped and the official ruled a 3-point shooting foul. At that point, the Richmond coach went through the roof and got two T's leading to an ejection.

Quite the ending. :-)

Dead ball contact technical -- 2 shots and possession at the division line, just like NFHS rules.

[REFANDUMP]

Looked like a lot of acting by the Charlotte player on the free throw action. I believe a personal foul was warranted but not a technical. I agree with the 3 shot foul on the inbounds play.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

Looked like a lot of acting by the Charlotte player on the free throw action. I believe a personal foul was warranted but not a technical. I agree with the 3 shot foul on the inbounds play.

You don't have that choice if you follow the rules. Once the ball goes through the hoop, it is dead and you cannot call a personal foul for contact during a dead ball period. It was too much to ignore so it had to be a T.

[MathReferee]

Thanks for posting. From the first camera angle, I was expecting more of a shove, but from the L's view, definitely was there and correctly called on first T. On the resulting inbounds, I am curious to hear what others think in awarding the player 3 shots on the foul. Prior to seeing the video, I did not think I would agree, but afterwards, I actually agree it was a shot attempt. He clearly had gathered and was in his habitual shooting motion prior to contact, but I had not really seen anyone pull this off when they knew the other team was trying to foul.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by REFANDUMP

I believe a personal foul was warranted but not a technical.

Do you believe this through lack of rules knowledge or not doing games at this level? Or are you saying you would call a PF in contravention to the rules because you personally feel the TF is too harsh a penalty despite the rules?

[OKREF]

Just watched it on ESPN. I have no problem with any of this. The shove is clearly a dead ball foul, and couldn't be ignored. Yes they were trying to foul, but that was an attempt.

Miles Simon said that the officials shouldn't have decided the game and had no business calling these. "Let the kids decide it". I disagree with this. They did decide it, and when we as officials pass on things at the end of a game we are also deciding it. If it is there and it needs to be called, we should just call it.

[MD Longhorn]

Calling that a shooting foul is a huge stretch. Winging the ball toward the goal after getting hit when there was ZERO chance you were actually going to shoot is NOT a shot attempt. Especially from half court.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by OKREF

"Let the kids decide it". I disagree with this. They did decide it, and when we as officials pass on things at the game we are also deciding it.

I agree with this 100%.

[REFANDUMP]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Do you believe this through lack of rules knowledge or not doing games at this level? Or are you saying you would call a PF in contravention to the rules because you personally feel the TF is too harsh a penalty despite the rules?

My bad. A "T" is the correct call as the shove was after the ball entered the basket.

[MathReferee]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Calling that a shooting foul is a huge stretch. Winging the ball toward the goal after getting hit when there was ZERO chance you were actually going to shoot is NOT a shot attempt. Especially from half court.

If I were making that call live, I most likely would not call this a shooting foul since there would not be a normal reason for him to be shooting. However, just in watching the replay, the player had already ended his dribble and was airborne in what appeared to be a motion to shoot when contact occurred so I can see why he was awarded three shots. Path of least resistance is certainly just awarding the bonus free throws. I doubt Charlotte's coach would complain too much about it being called this way. That does not make it correct though.

[BoomerSooner]

They must have been trying test the age old question of whether or not fouling and committing 3 technical fouls when up by 3 in the closing seconds of a game is a strategically sound move. I'll leave it up to the coaches to decide which strategy to pursue.