Tomegun,

I did not go back and re-read the original post to make sure I was using the same player numbers. You are correct. B2 was the player who did the fouling on A1 and B1 took the charge. Sorry for exchanging them in my reply.

You wave the shot off because A1 committed a player control foul! It's just like any other player control foul where the offending player's shot goes in. You wave it off.

I partially agree with this logic, but why clear the lane to shoot the free throws and then give the ball to B? I would think if you're going to shoot the free throws that players would be on the lane as in a normal sitch.

A couple of things for clarification:
-the defender was not even close to being under the basket, so that was not an option.
-the hack did not in any way shape or form cause the charge so that was off the table.

Here is what the officials in the sitch did (again NCAA-W):
Waved off the basket, called the hack on B1 and gave A1 two free throws with players on the lane. I do not believe they assessed A1 a foul for player control even though they evidently used this as reasoning to wipe the basket. (I am only 80% sure on the foul not being assessed to A1 because I was watching on TV and it might have been missed)

I think I am falling on the side of the false double foul, but I still don't follow the reasoning of clearing the lane. I think I would have a foul on B1 for hack, a PC foul on A1, no basket and two free throws with players on the lane.

If you're calling the false-double foul here, you penalize in the order they occurred. First, you have the shooting foul on B1. A gets two shots since the basket was waved off due to the ensuing PC foul. Second, you give B the ball because the PC foul happened afterward. A's punishment, aside from the increased foul count, is the loss of the opportunity to rebound.

Btw, Congratulations are in order for Bart Tyson, selected to work post season play in Region VI JuCo ball. Nice job.

I guess I could see that. That's not what these officials did, but, I have the feeling they were trying to find some middle ground that would only have both coaches somewhat mad instead of one coach totally off the hook.

I do believe that they missed the last part of the situation. If it was a technical (NCAAW), you would proceed from the point of interruption so maybe they were confused and thought that there should be people on the lane. They should have cleared the lane and given the ball to B after the two free throws because the player control foul occurred second.

Did the same official call both fouls? I have had this play happen several times but I have never called it that way. The first foul against the defender hacking the shooter will usually suffice both coaches. Trying to explain this situation to coaches is not worth it. Pick ONE and go with it!

Looks to me that they should have either counted the shot or charged A1 with a foul. Neither coach dares complain, but the refs got it wrong, it seems. Unless they did charge A1 with a foul and just administered the free throw wrong.

aw

No, it was a double whistle sitch. Trail and C got together, with neither giving the dreaded preliminary signal.

Would it make a difference if they were in the double bonus?

Only if she double dribbled. Unless, of course, we have a double violation on the free throw or throw in. Then, of course, the penalty is a double cheeseburger.

Bartender, I'll have a double.

Thats funny. :)

It would have been more funnier if I'd posted it twice. :)

Now, that wasn't AS funny. :D

Thanks