Manhattan vs. Iona False Double Fouls (Video)

[Raymond]

W5 received a FF1 and a T. G12 received a T.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

W5 received a FF1 and a T. G12 received a T.

The officials must have decided that the first foul by W5 occurred while the ball was live after reviewing the video.

[walt]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The officials must have decided that the first foul by W5 occurred while the ball was live after reviewing the video.

I agree that is the only way they could have decide it in order to administer it the way they did. They shot the common foul followed by the FF1 free throws as the double T's cancel. I am confused though as to why they administered the throw in after the FF1 free throws at the division line instead of at the spot of the foul.

[deecee]

So they saw a punch thrown? But they didn't think it was a big enough punch to warrant an ejection?

I'm confused on that part.

[CNYREF]

I think everyone is confused because the announcers erroneously said they called a double tech which I don't think ever happened. They called the common foul and noticed the scrumm reviewed to see if anything bad happened decided white had a DBCT shot the 1 and 1 shot the DBcT and took to division line correctly.....?

[BryanV21]

Sounds like everything was done right, except that W5 should have been ejected if the double tech truly occurred.

BTW, I called an intentional foul on a player I saw throw a little jab into his opponent. While making the call I knew I could toss the player as it was a fighting act, but it was early in the game and the jab didn't lead to any sort of retaliation (punch back, arguing, etc), so I left it as an intentional foul and moved on. The rest of the game was great, and there was no ill will from either side (coaches or players).

[deecee]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Sounds like everything was done right, except that W5 should have been ejected if the double tech truly occurred.

BTW, I called an intentional foul on a player I saw throw a little jab into his opponent. While making the call I knew I could toss the player as it was a fighting act, but it was early in the game and the jab didn't lead to any sort of retaliation (punch back, arguing, etc), so I left it as an intentional foul and moved on. The rest of the game was great, and there was no ill will from either side (coaches or players).

So a punch is only considered a punch if there is retaliation? Not fair for the punchee IMO.

[Multiple Sports]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

Sounds like everything was done right, except that W5 should have been ejected if the double tech truly occurred.

BTW, I called an intentional foul on a player I saw throw a little jab into his opponent. While making the call I knew I could toss the player as it was a fighting act, but it was early in the game and the jab didn't lead to any sort of retaliation (punch back, arguing, etc), so I left it as an intentional foul and moved on. The rest of the game was great, and there was no ill will from either side (coaches or players).

Sounds like a very smart piece of officiating....well done !!!!!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by CNYREF

I think everyone is confused because the announcers erroneously said they called a double tech which I don't think ever happened. They called the common foul and noticed the scrumm reviewed to see if anything bad happened decided white had a DBCT shot the 1 and 1 shot the DBcT and took to division line correctly.....?

Play-by-play indicates a technical was called on both G12 and W5, as well as a FF1 on W5.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by CNYREF

I think everyone is confused because the announcers erroneously said they called a double tech which I don't think ever happened. They called the common foul and noticed the scrumm reviewed to see if anything bad happened decided white had a DBCT shot the 1 and 1 shot the DBcT and took to division line correctly.....?

Turns out I think this was what happened. I checked multiple box scores and in each one, the only T in the game was noted for W5. Given the fact that G12 did not shoot foul shots and the ball subsequently was given to G at the division line, I knew what W5 got hit with must have been a CDBT and not a FF1.

I'm pretty sure there was a Double T initially called because there was a "whistle and hands point both way" mechanic used by the calling official, and given the situation both the announcer and I immediately recognized it as a Double T. So yeah....I honestly think that after the review, realizing that they probably called the Double T before they had all the facts from the monitor review, they simply took it back. Wow. Ballz!

There was a long chat with the coaches before the final verdict; W coach looked relieved and G coach had a look as if he was thinking, "Ok, that's fair, my player G12 doesn't get a T and I get the ball; I can deal with that." So I wonder if the officials explained to the coaches that they were going to rescind the Double T with justification?

What do you think? Championship game, you call a Double T, then do a review and find another T. W5 should be ejected. Would you take back the Double T?

[Raymond]

Looking at the replay, G12 did absolutely nothing. He didn't even retaliate after getting the business. I could see his T getting rescinded after they went to the monitor.