Richmond vs. Charlotte End of Game

[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.

[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]

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%.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[bainsey]

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.

[zebraman]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

[KMBReferee]

Wow. Talk about a crazy ending.

The question about the foul on the ft is whether or not the official himself knew the ball went in the basket before he called the technical. I never saw him look up. Maybe he did realize it, maybe he didn't. But at the very least it was a Flagrant 1 foul with a two-hand shove to the chest.

I think the ESPN anchor got confused. I'm not too familiar with NCAA protocol, but aren't you supposed to give him the 2nd shot on the 1 and 1 first and then shoot the technicals?

The ruling of a shooting foul is a tough call. Dribbler was airborne and facing the basket, but let's also be realistic here. Charlotte's up by 1 with seconds remaining. Is he really trying to commit a shot attempt or is he just trying to throw the ball in the air to run out the clock? And that happens all the time. While I was initially thought that was the right call, the more I contemplate it I think Mooney had a legit gripe there, albeit he deserved to get tossed for how he reacted.

[Judtech]

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.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by AustinRef

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.

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

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).