Chris,
You are correct that the official should have been observing the thrower as well as counting five seconds. Additionally, you are probably correct about the rule. As far as I know
in the NFHS rules if the player making the throw-in fumbles the ball away, there is no ruling that tells the official to readminister it.
There is such a ruling for a FT shooter, so the argument could be made to use the same philosophy.
FREE-THROWER LOSES BALL
9.1.1 SITUATION: A1, at the free throw line to attempt a free throw (a) muffs the pass from the official and it rolls forward; or (b) accidentally drops the ball before the throwing motion is started. RULING: In (a) and (b) the official should sound the whistle to prevent any violations and then start the free throw procedure again.
Now in the NCAA rule book there is such direction.
7-6-5
A.R. 163.
A1, on a throw-in from a designated spot, fumbles. A1 leaves the designated spot to retrieve the fumble. Is this a violation? RULING: No. Since there was a fumble, the official shall blow his/her whistle, which causes the ball to become dead, and then shall re-administer the throw-in.
Strangely, on page 20 of the November 2006 issue of Referee Magazine the following Caseplay appears:
Fumbled Ball
Play: A1 has the ball at his or her disposal for (a) a designated-spot throw-in, or (b) a free-throw attempt, but A1 fumbles the ball, and it bounces serveral feet away such that A1 would have to leave the (a) designated-spot, or (b) free-throw semicircle in order to retrieve the ball. Shall a violation be called on A1 if he or she tries to retrieve the ball?
Ruling: When A1 loses possession of the ball in a manner such as presented in either scenario (a) or (b), the official shall immediately blow the whistle, which will cause the ball to become dead. The official should remind the player to use a little more caution next time (using a bit of humor in that scenario is acceptable), and shall again put the ball at the disposal of the player and begin a new throw-in or free-throw count, respectively (NFHS 7-6-2, 9-1-1, 9.1.1: NCAA 7-6-5 A.R. 18, 9-1-2a A.R. 1).
Until I see something in writing stating otherwise from the Federation, I don't agree that the RM caseplay is correct for NFHS rules, nor do I agree with it philosophically. Perhaps the NFHS issued an interpretation sometime in the past stating to do this. I don't know, but probably JR, Bob Jenkins, MTD, or someone else on this forum could provide that information.