Richmond vs. Charlotte End of Game

[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.

[mutantducky]

I thought it was a clear shooting foul.
As for the FT T- look up the earlier posts on dead ball.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by KMBReferee

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?

That's what happened - #15 shot his 2nd then #21 shot two - and in this instance that's what's supposed to happen because this was a false multiple foul with the last foul being a dead ball contact T. The ball goes back into play as though the last foul was the only one that took place.

In most cases in the NCAA you shoot the T then go to the POI.

[Adam]

Credit to espin, they just aired a phone interview with Steve Javie who essentially said what we've been saying.

1. They had no choice on that first technical foul.
2. He'd let the coach vent a little, but when he comes out on the court like that completely out of control after tossing his jacket, he's no longer "venting a little."

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Adam

Credit to espin, they just aired a phone interview with Steve Javie who essentially said what we've been saying.

1. They had no choice on that first technical foul.
2. He'd let the coach vent a little, but when he comes out on the court like that completely out of control after tossing his jacket, he's no longer "venting a little."

What did he say about the 1/2 court 'shot' call?

I still don't see it as a shot attempt. Fortunately for me, neither does one of my supervisors. And at the end of the day that's the only person whose opinion on the situation matters

[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.