Richmond gives up 8 points in last 5 seconds to lose by 5?

[BD80]

Apparently up 3 with 5 seconds to go, Richmond fouls to ensure opponent can't shoot a 3. On the missed free throw, Richmond throws opponent to ground, getting technical. Apparently 2 more techs called.

[diablesseblu]

Apparently up 3 with 5 seconds to go, Richmond fouls to ensure opponent can't shoot a 3. On the missed free throw, Richmond throws opponent to ground, getting technical. Apparently 2 more techs called.

The two additional TFs were on the Richmond coach. It was bizarre to watch this.

[Tripping William]

Shouldn't this be merged to the "To Foul Or Not To Foul" thread? (I kid!) :D

[CDu]

I only saw the replay, but it seemed like the first technical might have been iffy. Hard to tell if the Richmond player really shoved the guy to the floor, or whether there was a substantial embellishment. Strange to see a technical on what was (I think) a dead ball situation on the made free throw turn the game.

That said, the coach clearly lost his composure. There were still 2 seconds left and Richmond would have only been down, at most 3. Instead, the second technical ultimately eliminated any chance of a 3 to tie.

[loran16]

If you want a conspiracy theory, the over/under was 130.5. The final score combined was 131 after the technicals.

EDIT: 131

[Blue KevIL]

I only saw the replay, but it seemed like the first technical might have been iffy. Hard to tell if the Richmond player really shoved the guy to the floor, or whether there was a substantial embellishment. Strange to see a technical on what was (I think) a dead ball situation on the made free throw turn the game.

That said, the coach clearly lost his composure. There were still 2 seconds left and Richmond would have only been down, at most 3. Instead, the second technical ultimately eliminated any chance of a 3 to tie.

The coach was T'd up after the officials ruled the foul on the Charlotte in bound was in the act of shooting a three -- to me, it looked like the Richmond foul was clearly before the shot attempt. Because the video is a bit confusing, my guess is that Richmond had not yet put Charlotte in the double-bonus and that the foul was an attempt to put them on the line for a one-and-one. I can understand how a coach can get that upset. Poor job by the officials in my mind.

[CDu]

The coach was T'd up after the officials ruled the foul on the Charlotte in bound was in the act of shooting a three -- to me, it looked like the Richmond foul was clearly before the shot attempt. Because the video is a bit confusing, my guess is that Richmond had not yet put Charlotte in the double-bonus and that the foul was an attempt to put them on the line for a one-and-one. I can understand how a coach can get that upset. Poor job by the officials in my mind.

Sure, it was a bad call on the last one. But that's not worth getting a technical and eliminating any chance of a win. It appeared to be a poor job by the officials AND a poor job of maintaining composure by the coach. Gotta know the situation, and give your kids a chance to win.

[Channing]

can someone post video highlights? I can't seem to find them.

[sagegrouse]

can someone post video highlights? I can't seem to find them.

Check Deadspin. -- sage

[Bluedog]

They were bad calls in my opinion. A intentional foul on a made free throw? He was just trying to jockey for position and then the guy flopped. Maybe a normal foul since he extended his arm a bit, but not super excessive. And in the act of shooting a 3 from half court? The guy clearly heard the whistle and then just launched up a shot. Can't believe the ref was fooled by that.


Check Deadspin. -- sage

I refuse to go on that site anymore after all the Duke hate there (much worse than any other site in my opinion for some reason)...but saw the highlights on ESPN.

[hurleyfor3]

Was Daniel Ewing on the court for Richmond?

The first T was pretty clearly a shove. I wouldn't call it throwing the guy to the ground, but I don't know how you ignore it.

In the grand scheme of things it reminds me of Wake fans complaining about the "Scoreboard" game ('75 ACC Tournament vs. unc). No one's going or not going to the NCAA Tournament because of this.

[CDu]

They were bad calls in my opinion. A intentional foul on a made free throw? He was just trying to jockey for position and then the guy flopped. Maybe a normal foul since he extended his arm a bit, but not super excessive. And in the act of shooting a 3 from half court? The guy clearly heard the whistle and then just launched up a shot. Can't believe the ref was fooled by that.

At one point, a foul in a dead ball situation was an automatic technical. That may or may not still be the case. But if it is, AND if the Richmond guy really did foul the Charlotte guy, then the technical was the correct call. The question in my mind is whether the Richmond guy really did enough to warrant being called for a foul, or whether the officials simply fell prey to a good flop job.

[Blue KevIL]

At one point, a foul in a dead ball situation was an automatic technical. That may or may not still be the case. But if it is, AND if the Richmond guy really did foul the Charlotte guy, then the technical was the correct call. The question in my mind is whether the Richmond guy really did enough to warrant being called for a foul, or whether the officials simply fell prey to a good flop job.

I'm not sure how an official can decide that two players going for a rebound on a one-and-one FT is a dead ball situation regardless of whether or not a foul was committed.

[buddy]

I'm not sure how an official can decide that two players going for a rebound on a one-and-one FT is a dead ball situation regardless of whether or not a foul was committed.

The foul shot was made, so it was a dead ball situation. That said, there was contact both ways. It looked like the Richmond player had his hands on the Charlotte player's head. The Richmond guy ended up on the floor, but if the shove put him there he is a real wimp. I have watched several replays and think the refs really overreacted. As for the coach, when the act of shooting foul was called (three shots) his team was already down one. He probably overreacted, but he had just been screwed by the officials, and the three shot foul was a second screwing. No way it was act of shooting. He saw his victory taken away from him, not by the other team, but by the players.

Having said all that, Digger said the same thing. When Digger says these guys should never officiate again, maybe the NCAA should give them the National Championship game. (sarcasm).

[Blue KevIL]

More craziness.
In the Big West, Pacific (2) vs UCSB (7). Pacific up 69-68 with possession.

UCSB fouls ball handler with 9.4 seconds.
During the foul, Pacific ball handler makes contact with his arm above UCSB player's shoulder.
Pacific player called for T.

Pacific misses both FTs.
UCSB gets two FTs -- missed both -- and possession and proceeds to miss shot.

Pacific rebounds & gets fouled with .6 seconds.
Made both FTs and wins 71-68.

[gus]

Well, I guess we have another data point favoring "not".

[Tripping William]

What is the statistical probability of what happened in Richmond v. Charlotte today? Inquiring minds & all ..... :)

[Bluedog]

Well, I guess we have another data point favoring "not".

I think the "not" refers to don't get a technical foul on a made free throw.... ;)

[davekay1971]

I think the "not" refers to don't get a technical foul on a made free throw.... ;)

And try not to have your coach go postal.

[JasonEvans]

And try not to have your coach go postal.

And hope that your game is being refereed by guys qualified to do at least junior high basketball.

-Jason "the FT tech was one thing, but giving the player 3-shots for that silly halfcourt heave was just too much" Evans

[FerryFor50]

I'm still not clear how the push on the rebound attempt was a technical. He fouled him, yes. But the guy flopped. A lot.

That probably set the whole meltdown in motion...

[JasonEvans]

I'm still not clear how the push on the rebound attempt was a technical. He fouled him, yes. But the guy flopped. A lot.

That probably set the whole meltdown in motion...

We need a ref expert, but I don't know why that was not just a typical "going for the rebound" loose ball foul.

[Merlindevildog91]

I had the morning docket with the judge whose alma mater is Richmond. The docket ended just after halftime, which meant his lunch break coincided with the second half.

I haven't heard if everyone on the afternoon docket went to jail, but I suspect it wasn't a good time to be pleading not guilty.

[uh_no]

The rule book states as follows:


g. Contact dead ball technical foul. A contact dead ball technical foul
occurs when the ball is dead and involves contact that is unnecessary,
unacceptable and excessive, but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2
contact technical foul.

The first question is, is it a dead ball?


Art. 1. The ball shall become dead or remain dead when:
a. Any goal is made.


So the only question is whether the contact was "unnecessary, unacceptable, and excessive"....and that is of course open for interpretation...

in my opinion, at least, the guy pushed with his arms, and the other guy ended up on the ground....that is excessive contact in a dead ball situation

there is no option for the refs to call a "regular" foul in that situation....it was either a no call, or a technical....now, I might agree that it should have been a T on both guys...but you extend your arms, make contact, and the other guy ends up on the ground? you're gonna get called 99 times out of 100

[TruBlu]

And hope that your game is being refereed by guys qualified to do at least junior high basketball.


That eliminates Karl Hess and Ted Valentine, huh?

[loran16]

The rule book states as follows:



The first question is, is it a dead ball?



So the only question is whether the contact was "unnecessary, unacceptable, and excessive"....and that is of course open for interpretation...

in my opinion, at least, the guy pushed with his arms, and the other guy ended up on the ground....that is excessive contact in a dead ball situation

there is no option for the refs to call a "regular" foul in that situation....it was either a no call, or a technical....now, I might agree that it should have been a T on both guys...but you extend your arms, make contact, and the other guy ends up on the ground? you're gonna get called 99 times out of 100

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation Uh_No. The "when a basket is made" phrase almost certainly is meant to apply to when the basket is made and the ball is taken out of bounds...you'd never see a T called on contact that began before the bucket was made only to slightly continue after it. Here, yes the FT is made, but the contact starts before hand when it's not a dead ball situation.

[uh_no]

That is untrue. It clearly states "any goal" which includes made free throws. You're argument that perhaps since the contact was initiated before the basket was made means it could be considered live ball is sound, but I'm not sure that there is a reasonable interpretation that once the ball has gone through the hoop it is a live ball...

Its somehwat close, and I would have preferred a double T, but he pushed the guy after the basket was made...and when you push a guy, you can't complain about what gets called.

[Ichabod Drain]

The rule book states as follows:



The first question is, is it a dead ball?



So the only question is whether the contact was "unnecessary, unacceptable, and excessive"....and that is of course open for interpretation...

in my opinion, at least, the guy pushed with his arms, and the other guy ended up on the ground....that is excessive contact in a dead ball situation

there is no option for the refs to call a "regular" foul in that situation....it was either a no call, or a technical....now, I might agree that it should have been a T on both guys...but you extend your arms, make contact, and the other guy ends up on the ground? you're gonna get called 99 times out of 100

In our last game against Carolina, Tyler was called for a foul either after a field goal was made or while the shot was in the air. I can't rememeber exactly what and when it happened but I do remember it counted as a regular foul, the bucket counted, and carolina was awarded the ball. I'll have to go back and look at it, now worries I have that game DVR'd. :D

Also that was definitely a flagrant 1. Two handed, arms fully extended push above the shoulders.

[loran16]

That is untrue. It clearly states "any goal" which includes made free throws. You're argument that perhaps since the contact was initiated before the basket was made means it could be considered live ball is sound, but I'm not sure that there is a reasonable interpretation that once the ball has gone through the hoop it is a live ball...

Its somehwat close, and I would have preferred a double T, but he pushed the guy after the basket was made...and when you push a guy, you can't complain about what gets called.

I mean listen, I think the Ref has more than a leg to stand on here. I'm just saying I think it's kind of silly for contact to suddenly be required to cease once the ball enters the hoop. The push was a bit much and probably more backs up the Ref, but I've seen worse not called a T

[magjayran]

Horrible coaching.

First the decision to foul instead of give up the three. I completely understand the logic behind the strategy but I don't like it. When this situation occurs rebounded free throws become very important which means guys will go hard for the rebound which means you could find your guys being called for stupid fouls.

Sure, the Charlotte player had his hands up around the Richmond guys head but you've got to teach your player to stop jostling for position after the ball goes through the net. Instead the Richmond fella shoves the Charlotte fella and Richmond goes from having a great chance of winning to a great chance of losing.

Now the three shots on the later inbounds was definitely questionable and maybe I need to watch the replay again, but I thought the Charlotte player (is he really named after bottled water?) actually got into shooting motion before the foul. Most refs won't call it but Sparkly Water's timing was pretty good. Still, there was time left and one missed free throw means Richmond has a CHANCE to tie. But no, meltdown guarantees a loss. I know coach apologized to the fans but he needs to apologize to the players as well. This loss is on him.

[uh_no]

Yeah. I think the problem is more with the rule than the ref. I think there needs to be "continuation" since its still in the act of the play. Even if it was live ball, though, I think it was still perhaps a technical.