NCAA Men's National Championship Video Requests

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by MOofficial

So between the real job and ample amounts of reading, I'm still not seeing much as far as correct/incorrect ruling on the personal foul followed by the F1.



While I was watching the game, that ruling just didn't seem right. Can someone help me out?



We all know what they called and how it was administered.



My questions - After the personal foul, the ball becomes dead, at that moment, any contact that is illegal and excessive would have to become a dead ball contact technical foul. Is that correct or incorrect? If administered as a personal foul and then a dead ball contact, they would shoot the personal foul first (if in bonus), then the dead ball contact, with the ball being awarded at the division line for a throw in?



Sorry if it has already been discussed in this thread, I just haven't found it yet.



Thanks guys, it's been a pleasure this year!

Originally Posted by dahoopref

From what I saw, it was ruled a double-foul that involved a F1 on Gonzaga #24 and common foul UNC #2. From there, the procedure is as follows:



The penalty for double fouls is no free throws and play

is resumed at the point of interruption unless one of the fouls is

a flagrant foul. Gonzaga #24 will shoot a one-and-one free throw with no

players in the marked lane spaces for the common foul charged to

UNC #2. Following these free throws, UNC #2 will shoot two free throws with

no players in the marked lane spaces for the flagrant 1 personal foul

charged to Gonzaga #24. Play is resumed with a throw-in to UNC at the point

of interruption, which is nearest to where the fouls occurred.

I think dahoopref has it right. That I'm aware, there is no "unless" clause in NFHS. It's important to point this out because most forum members are not collegiate officials, and what was administered on TV last night would not be the way to administer it in a high school game.

As to whether this could/should have been a false double foul……meh. I think this was so bang-bang that it qualifies as "two fouls committed by opponents against each other at approximately the same time" per the definition of a double foul. I was ok with the ruling (if not the use of the word "followed" in the explanation to the TV crew).






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk