Richmond vs. Charlotte End of Game
 

Can someone please post the end of this game from today? I am just watching the gamecast on ESPN and Charlotte was down 3 with 6 seconds left. Richmond fouled to give Charlotte the FT's instead of 3 attempt to tie, but then a Richmond player received a technical after the first FT. Charlotte made all four FT's to go up 1, but then Richmond coach earned another T. So far 8 FT's in last 6 seconds for Charlotte, 2 from original foul and another 6 from T's I think. Crazy March!

I was watching the game. Here is what I think I saw:

Charlotte down 3. Richmond fouls the Charlotte player with about 4 seconds left to put Charlotte at the line (to avoid a 3-point shot which could have tied the game). After the first free throw goes through the hoop (dead ball period), a Richmond player (who was battling for rebounding position) shoves a Charlotte player. It was too obvious to ignore and the official correctly called a technical foul. Charlotte still down by 2 at this point.

After the two successful free throws for the T and the second free throw for the common foul (also successful), Charlotte was up by one and was given the ball at halfcourt (shouldn't it have been Richmond's ball after the four FT's because of POI?). **Thanks to Rich for reminding me of the dead ball contact procedure in his post below** Charlotte inbounded and was fouled immediately. The Charlotte player threw up a 3-pointer after he got bumped and the official ruled a 3-point shooting foul. At that point, the Richmond coach went through the roof and got two T's leading to an ejection.

Quite the ending. :-)

Video of the play.

Charlotte Beat Richmond in One of the Craziest Endings Ever, From Down 3 to Up 5 Thanks to Technicals in Final Five Seconds | The Big Lead

You Tube Vid
 

Dead ball contact technical -- 2 shots and possession at the division line, just like NFHS rules.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I agree with this 100%.

My bad. A "T" is the correct call as the shove was after the ball entered the basket.

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.

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.

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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

Mind Readers ???
 

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?

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

It's necessary but not sufficient.

Sometimes you need to officiate.

I just watched the play. Shooting foul, imo.

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."

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

On Mike and Mike, thought I also heard that Digger said that crew should not be allowed to work any more tourney games. REALLY:eek: 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.

I think the FED statement is something like "begins the habitual motion" so yes, a lot of that is judgment.

Correct. I don't even think the word gathering is in the NFHS book regarding a shooter.

And common sense.

Anyone else notice green 15 coming off the FT line toward the official to signal "T" multiple times?

There's a sage official around here somewhere who likes to say, "Sometimes you just have to referee."

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.

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."

I don't use the term "gather". It is an unnecessary term and it is entirely too vague. It is not defined and is used with great inconsistency with respect to when the shot begins and when the same player is liable for a travel. Some argue that "gather" is early when in the context of a shot but will swear up and down they've not gathered it when the discussion is a travel.

If they are holding the ball and are bringing it up or trying to bring it up at the time of contact, they're going to the line. They have to have started the upward movement with the ball (or be attempting to do so) or be attempting to turn to the basket (as in a typical post move) to be shooting. On a fast break/layup, that usually starts about the same time they catch the ball but not necessarily. Farther from the basket, it is usually later.

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:)

He didn't address it that I heard. I had a 7 year old running around, so I may have missed something. Honestly, I can see both sides of that, and I don't know how I would have ruled on the court. Hopefully, we'll get to see it on video in an association meeting.

So you say they "are holding the ball and trying to bring it up". Another official says they have "gathered the ball". There is no difference.

Not much of a multi-tasked are you?:)

A1 dribbles the ball. A1 intends to (a)while in the air, grab the ball with both hands, then (b) land in a jump stop, and then (c) jump to try for goal. (a reasonably standard play we see several times a game.)

During this move, however, A1 is fouled between steps (a) and (b).

If you use the "gathered" criterion (as I understand it to mean), you'd award two shots. If you use the "begins the habitual motion" you wouldn't -- the landing is one "move" and the "try for goal" is a second.

I think that's the difference, and I think the second interp is correct.

The point is that, in a different context, the same official will say they didn't gather it yet as a justification for not having a travel. It an undefined term that I see getting redefined on a whim to fit the desired, but sometimes unsupportable, end ruling rather than a clear definition that is used to determine the end ruling.

Thank you BOB! Great example to show that "gather" does not equal "shooting". It is necessary but is not sufficient (as I think you said earlier).

Ok. I guess we have different understandings of using the word "gathered". I would never use the word gathered to a coach in this play.

However, drive to basket. Player gathers the ball, or ( for Camron's benefit) the player is holding the ball and trying to bring it up, as they are fouled and then take one more step to lay it in...defensive coach wants an explanation on "the continuation". Simple answer - "He gathered the ball, Coach"

I prefer to say "He started the shot". Always accurate rather than misleading. Gather, to me, is akin to over the back or reach. It communicates the wrong thing.

Gathering the ball does not always constitute a shooting motion. Starting the shooting motion does. These are two different things.

+100

Horse's Mouth ...
 

4-11 Continous Motion:

ART. 1 Continuous motion applies to a try or tap for field goals and free
throws, but it has no significance unless there is a foul by any defensive player
during the interval which begins when the habitual throwing movement starts a
try or with the touching on a tap and ends when the ball is clearly in flight.

ART. 2 If an opponent fouls after a player has started a try for goal, he/she
is permitted to complete the customary arm movement, and if pivoting or
stepping when fouled, may complete the usual foot or body movement in any
activity while holding the ball. These privileges are granted only when the usual
throwing motion has started before the foul occurs and before the ball is in flight.

ART. 3 Continuous motion does not apply if a teammate fouls after a player
has started a try for a goal and before the ball is in flight. The ball becomes dead
immediately.

Probably did. He said it on the postgame shows the night the game was played.

He's an idiot.

I agree as well. You don't give him the three.



!