Manhattan vs. Iona False Double Fouls (Video)

[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]

[Raymond]

Poor job by Lead staying with the pass and crash, which leads to no one monitoring players lying on floor.

[Nevadaref]

After watching the video, I can state that the punch to the head by W5 occurs prior to the foul by Green against the player with the ball. This can be verified at 53 seconds of the video.
Therefore, the foul by W5 is a personal foul. However, I judge it as a FF2.
Also the Black official definitely calls a double technical foul on the two players while his partners are working to separate them. Guess he just forgot to report it! Btw I have no problem with the double T as the players are certainly engaged verbally at that point.
I will agree with the post above that the Lead made a poor choice as to what action to observe. The on-ball action was way below the need to monitor the two players on top of each other. Missing a common foul or even a personal foul against a shooter is preferable to missing what happened on the floor at his feet. Additionally, either of his partners can come in and help with the on-ball play even though their angles aren't great. If either one realizes that the Lead is focused on the guys down at his feet, they could adjust.

[bwburke94]

It appears from the video to be a double T and a FF1, which is not an ejection.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

It appears from the video to be a double T and a FF1, which is not an ejection.

If you're not going to make the argument that it's FF2 worthy, then I think you're right and this probably should have been the way of assessment. But the fouls were so close together that it took a few looks for me to determine what happened in what order, so I don't necessarily fault the crew here.

Anyway, if you assess it this way, I think what happens is:

1. The FF1 by W5 happens first and causes the ball to become dead. Therefore the common foul on G33 is ignored.

2. The double T is assessed. Adds a Class A T for each player and one more foul to the team foul total for each team, but otherwise has no bearing on what happens next.

3. G12 shoots two on his end for the FF1.

4. G gets the ball under W's basket and we play on.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

If you're not going to make the argument that it's FF2 worthy, then I think you're right and this probably should have been the way of assessment. But the fouls were so close together that it took a few looks for me to determine what happened in what order, so I don't necessarily fault the crew here.

Anyway, if you assess it this way, I think what happens is:

1. The FF1 by W5 happens first and causes the ball to become dead. Therefore the common foul on G33 is ignored.

2. The double T is assessed. Adds a Class A T for each player and one more foul to the team foul total for each team, but otherwise has no bearing on what happens next.

3. G12 shoots two on his end for the FF1.

4. G gets the ball under W's basket and we play on.

If the officials had seen all of the action live and made the calls then, you would be correct. However, if the Flagrant is called upon a monitor review, then the common foul stands.