Manhattan vs. Iona False Double Fouls (Video)

[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.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by deecee

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

Neither the punchee nor his coach felt that way. And my partners were OK with the call after I explained it to them. Heck, I'm not sure the guy that got punched even knew. Lol

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

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

I agree. If I see a punch thrown, I don't care if it's a subtle jab or a right hook. He's done.

And whether the rest of the game went off without a hitch is not an indicator of whether you were right to let him off with an intentional foul. It just means you got lucky.

[Sharpshooternes]

I have a FF2 on the ground and pound MMA style. Pretty easy in my opinion. The only other thing that I would consider is if the guy on the bottom said something to provoke the punch. Then they are both gone.

[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.

[CNYREF]

They didn't have to rescind it because they never called it. Or atleast never reported it. Maybe the book just jumped the gun as did the announcers

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by CNYREF

They didn't have to rescind it because they never called it. Or atleast never reported it. Maybe the book just jumped the gun as did the announcers

That's a possibility. Might have just conveniently not brought it up to the official scorer when they made their final determinations.

Like I said, overall I loved how the crew handled it. They didn't feel artificially rushed to come to a complex decision, and guess what? They got it right. I loved it. A+.

[APG]