Manhattan vs. Iona False Double Fouls (Video)

[crosscountry55]

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Maybe they rescinded the double T (or at least W5's part of it)?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