Richmond vs. Charlotte End of Game

[deecee]

Originally Posted by APG

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

You are correct, and I should reword my initial statement to any intentional (intentional in the means to force FT's) foul by the leading team and therefore stopping the game clock is atrocious.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

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.

The point is that no matter how many times people use term "gather" it still means absolutely nothing according to the rules. Gather is just a fancy word for catching the ball. Many different things may follow catching the ball and only one of them is a shot. So, "gather" doesn't imply shooting any more then being 10 feet from the basket does. The only thing it tells you is that prior to the "gather" the player can't be shooting. But that is not one bit different than saying that a player who hasn't caught the ball can't be shooting.

Originally Posted by deecee

...atrocious strategy...

Originally Posted by APG

It's far from an atrocious strategy and works most of the time.

I can see a coach using this tactic in a situation where the other team is making a run and has all the momentum. Fouling for a 1 and 1 or even double bonus can disrupt the rhythm of a team that believes they are capable of continuing their run.

That said, it would be very interesting to see a statistical analysis of this situation versus not fouling at all. I see this strategy as something to be used similarly to the foul to give -- low game time left, etc. I bet the Sloan Conference might have something to say about this.

[mutantducky]

man as a Richmond fan I'd be ticked but after watching the replays I can't fault the officials. (As for the later Tech's I don't know)
After reading the recaps I thought it would have been more controversial but I think most people will agree Richmond shot themselves in the foot.

[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.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The point is that no matter how many times people use term "gather" it still means absolutely nothing according to the rules. Gather is just a fancy word for catching the ball. Many different things may follow catching the ball and only one of them is a shot. So, "gather" doesn't imply shooting any more then being 10 feet from the basket does. The only thing it tells you is that prior to the "gather" the player can't be shooting. But that is not one bit different than saying that a player who hasn't caught the ball can't be shooting.

Camron,

I'd like to know what your criteria is for a shooting foul. Is gather not part of that equation? Or, what has to happen for you to call "and one".

[IREFU2]

The Coach was out of control. I saw basically the same thing happen in my NCAA D3 Regional Tournament Game with a crew we were following. The coach was T'd for acting nuts and then he was clearly out of the box still acting up, but the crew didnt toss him. IMHO, he should have been ejected. So, I am all for the actions of that crew in the Richmond game.

[BillyMac]

Let's say, in this play, that the player gets held after he "gathers" and starts to do something with the ball, but is held in such a way so that the ball is never released from his hands?

We've all seen this play on a put back a few feet from the basket where we are 100% sure that there would have been a shot if the defender had not held the shooter and we have awarded appropriate free throws for the act of shooting. Now move that same play back to forty feet away from the basket. What do we have?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by twocentsworth

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.

Yep, I didn't see anything that the officials did wrong.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Camron,

I'd like to know what your criteria is for a shooting foul. Is gather not part of that equation? Or, what has to happen for you to call "and one".

It's necessary but not sufficient.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Let's say, in this play, that the player gets held after he "gathers" and starts to do something with the ball, but is held in such a way so that the ball is never released from his hands?

We've all seen this play on a put back a few feet from the basket where we are 100% sure that there would have been a shot if the defender had not held the shooter and we have awarded appropriate free throws for the act of shooting. Now move that same play back to forty feet away from the basket. What do we have?

Sometimes you need to officiate.

I just watched the play. Shooting foul, imo.

[bainsey]

Just listened to a Mike & Mike segment with Digger Phelps. Neither Mike knew a dead ball foul is a T, and Digger said "it's a dumb rule." Standard "let the kids decide the game" BS applies.

I've said before that I like to collect myths, and my number one myth has become, "you don't call that at that point of the game."

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's necessary but not sufficient.

Then, what criteria would make it sufficient? Is it as simple as "in my judgement, he/she was shooting?

[letemplay]

On Mike and Mike, thought I also heard that Digger said that crew should not be allowed to work any more tourney games. REALLY Did he actually say this? I could see Seth Greenberg saying it..probably.. Hey former coaches now "analysts": why don't you blame your brethren on the bench? If you are going to use this strategy of purposely fouling, then remind your guys that during the free throw "we do NOT want to foul now" and don't get drawn into a foul by the opposition, who is now trying their own strategy to do just that. I thought the Charlotte player actually initiated the contact by grabbing the UR player a bit around neck area during the free throw. This is why the UR player used both hands to push him away, followed by a bit more acting with the guy going down. If you see the facial reaction of this player, he's applauding as if he planned this all along and succeeded.