Manhattan vs. Iona False Double Fouls (Video)
 

3/9/15, MAAC Championship, Manhattan vs. Iona, ESPN2. Sequence begins with the Iona possession that starts around 5:25 in the first. Too complicated to describe in detail, so here's the summary that followed a long officials' conference and discussion with the HCs:

1. G12 tries to take a charge from W5 right in front of the L. Good no call (IMO), they get tangled up as G12 flops, and W5 ends up on top of G12. Pause your brain for a minute because at the same time....

2. W21 gets a pass in the low post in the C's PCA and is fouled by G33. C is stacked, so L makes the call. Then L looks back to the flop play because by now G12 and W5 are engaged in shenanigans. Turns out W5 threw a little mini-punch toward G12's head while he was on top of him, but the L missed it. It was a fraction of a second after the common foul by G33, so the ball was dead.

3. Tempers flare a little bit as G12 and W5 separate. Officials get involved, G12 and W5 keep jawing at each other, and finally one official assesses a double T.

4. The L knows something might have happened in the G12/W5 scrum, so they invoke 11-2.1.d.2 in order to do a monitor review. They ultimately see W5's mini-punch and classify it as a CDBT (IMO correct; there just wasn't quite enough there to make it a F2). So W21 gets a 1-and-1 with the lane cleared, then a G player shoots the T shots, and then G gets the ball at the division line.

Seems correct, right? Wait, hold on a sec. 11-2.1.d.3 states, "When it is determined that a flagrant 1 or 2 personal foul, a flagrant 2 contact technical foul or a fight did occur within the prescribed time frame, the infraction(s) should be penalized and play shall be resumed by awarding the ball to the offended team where the stoppage of play occurred to review the flagrant act. When a flagrant 2 contact technical foul or a contact dead ball technical foul is assessed, play shall be resumed by awarding the ball to the offended team at the division line on either side of the playing court. Any previous activity before the monitor review shall not be canceled or nullified."

Note the part in bold. If W5 got a T as part of the double T (previous activity before the review), and then was retroactively assessed the CDBT, isn't that two Class A Ts and therefore an ejection? Yet W5 stayed in the game.

Maybe they rescinded the double T (or at least W5's part of it)? I'll be interested in what the box score says later.

It was a doozy for the crew. Overall I thought they handled it very well.

The first I was going to say is that W5 should be gone for 2 T's.

Agree.

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.

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.

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.

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.....?

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).

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

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

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?

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.

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