The only thing I don't quite get is the second quick T on the coach. Granted, we couldn't hear anything, but it's curious.

At that point, the coach was completely out of control. I'm sure he made it easy.

Just because you don't think there is a reason for him to be shooting, the fact is that he was. I think there is a valid reason--get the ball up in the air while the clock is ticking and let it run out (of course that backfired in that New York HS playoff game a couple weeks ago). He was shooting, and while in the act he got fouled. Good call.

If it weren't for the 2 handed push at the end you could have gotten away with a personal foul. But with the push coming late in the action you didn't have a choice.
Calling the shooting foul is still a head scratcher. It looked to me the first time, and every time since, that the Charlotte player left his feet to pass the ball back to #44. Once he hears the whistle it appears is when he decides to 'shoot'. To me it goes back to what is more likely in a situation. Is it more likely, with his team up and the other team looking to foul, that the kid was passing to a team mate or shooting from 45'? I would like to see when the official signaled a 3 point attempt because there is no angle on the T and all you can see of the C is his fist raised for a foul.
As for the coach, he had a legitimate beef. But, if you are going to stomp out onto the floor you might as well just keep going to your locker room.

While I might agree with you, there is a contingent that feels that it must be a shot (or a pass) depending on what they actually do with it after getting fouled. If it ends up going to the basket, then he must have been shooting when he got fouled. ;)

(I have NOT watched this video so I'm am not making any claim about what this play should or should not be).

I don't have much of a problem with giving him 3 free throws. Frankly, it looks to me like he knew he was about to get fouled so he decided to put up a shot. Best case, he doesn't get fouled and ends up running the clock out with that shot attempt. Next best, he gets fouled and gets three shots, and the coach for the other team loses his mind and adds four more free throws to the mix. Worst case, no foul, and the ball is rebounded by the defense or goes OOB with less than a second left.

Looks like a pretty heady play to me.

Chris Paul and Russell Westbrook were real good at doing this in the NBA.

This used to happen all the time in the NBA...so the League came out with an new interpretation to its continuation rule stating that when a team is taking a "take foul" on the perimeter, a player is only considered in the act of shooting when they start their upward motion with the ball instead of when the ball was gathered. The only time this wouldn't apply is if it's a last second shot on the game clock or shot clock. In this instant, under NBA rules, he wouldn't be awarded 3 shots.

2 of my conferences hold a joint camp at the U of R. Be interesting to see if Coach Mooney addresses this when he does his segment with the campers.

If a kid gets fouled while gathering the ball, it's a "shooting foul" whether it happens in the lane, at the three point line, or at half-court.

EXACTLY like the "a foul is a foul in the first minute or the last minute of a game" philosophy.

Even if the kid is gathering to pass or just pick up the dribble? They have to be gathering for the purpose of shooting for it to be a shooting foul...and yes, you have to decide what they were trying to do (some might call it reading their mind). They don't get the benefit of a shooting foul if they gather, get fouled, and then decide to put up a shot.

The game of basketball becomes a lot easier for officials if we simply see the play start, develop, and finish, before we make decisions and blow the whistle.

This most definitely applies in this instance.

The fact still remains: each of the call in the last :04.7 were correct.

This is all the Richmond's coach's fault for his atrocious strategy of lets put the team that's down on the FT line. Isn't the team that's behind supposed to be the ones trying to stop the clock.

He should have been tossed for that call alone. To bad we can't hand out TF's for bonehead coaching (which happens often during each game) but they can question any and all of our calls.

You can literally hear broadcasters and fans suggest this tactic in any end of game situation with the team down by 3 having the ball without fail. It's far from an atrocious strategy and works most of the time.

Here's why it's atrocious. You are doing 2 things simultaneously. Stopping the clock AND allowing the team that's behind the opportunity to bridge the gap. This allows for the possibility of more things to go wrong than if say the clock were running and a team hits an amazing 3pointer to tie. I also guarantee you that playing good defense and forcing a team into a tough 3 point shot to tie will still give you a statistically better chance at winning than putting them on the line.

What they are also not taking into account, say the shooter makes the first FT, missed the second. You can have a putback, foul on the rebound, and in this case a make and TF. By extending the game you are giving more opportunity for things to not go your way. In the other scenario it's really a miracle 3 that sends the game to OT.

You also have to have a lot more things go right for you..first off make the first free throw..miss the free throw and hope it bounces in just the correct manner in which you can catch it...and get a decent shot off. Also remember in NCAA-M, the defense has the numbers advantage as only people in the lane can enter in early...it's 4 vs. 2 as far as who can fight for position earlier.

It's a lot rarer to see all that happen than a team to make a three pointer to tie it up. The biggest risk in fouling to not ensure the tying 3 is the fact that a 4 point play could occur if the offensive player is heads up enough and the defense isn't careful enough.

My main point in all of this is that the strategy is far from atrocious.