An announcer gets it right

[KCRC]

Bob,

There was an original foul called by L, either a common foul or a double foul, couldn't tell from the original signal. Then the officials got together to discuss BEFORE going to the monitor. It was unclear what the actual original call turned out to be from the officials' discussion. So I don't think it was an upgrade from a no call to a double foul, but a double foul that did not get upgraded to a flagrant. You guys are better with the rules than I am. Does this make sense?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by KCRC

Bob,

There was an original foul called by L, either a common foul or a double foul, couldn't tell from the original signal. Then the officials got together to discuss BEFORE going to the monitor. It was unclear what the actual original call turned out to be from the officials' discussion. So I don't think it was an upgrade from a no call to a double foul, but a double foul that did not get upgraded to a flagrant. You guys are better with the rules than I am. Does this make sense?

OK, this makes more sense; but I still question why they'd call a double personal foul when one of the players did not make contact with the other. It sounds like the best call would have been an unsporting T followed by an intentional Technical.

Not sure if this is considered a double T, though, as the Ts are different classes in NCAA (IMS).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

OK, this makes more sense; but I still question why they'd call a double personal foul when one of the players did not make contact with the other. It sounds like the best call would have been an unsporting T followed by an intentional Technical.

Not sure if this is considered a double T, though, as the Ts are different classes in NCAA (IMS).

Well, there was contact....takes two have any contact....just not on the first elbow. So, a double foul could still be a valid call.