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Maybe they rescinded the double T (or at least W5's part of it)?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

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+.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T0Kvg9r_-wo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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

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.

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.

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.

Makes sense. Order of fouls called on the floor matters.

So you're not saying that if the FF had been called first, and then there was a monitor review and then the officials noticed the common foul that they would then assess the common foul, right?

No they wouldn't.

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

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.

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.