There's no think. At the time of the whistle, Orlando had possession of the ball. So they retain possession of the ball. If the whistle comes while the ball is loose, resume with a jump ball.

that was something I thought I heard in this video. I was wrong. I thought the whistle had blown before he had the ball.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ9dO-gqHP4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDe9GPhSrgE

It looks like the Magic player has the ball at the exact same time of the first whistle, hard to tell exactly when. So inadvertent whistle, Magic keep the ball, and had he scored the basket it would not have counted.

Because Team A wasn't in control of the ball. The ball was dead at the time of the "GT", even if it was deemed incorrect later.

yeah. The whistle in the HS hypothetical occurs after the GT/basket interference. But you essentially backtrack to when the whistle was supposed to have blown with the possible violation. So if team A has the ball, like Oladipo did, it would be a possession/arrow play on the inadvertent whistle because no one was in control of the ball when the potential violation occurred. But from the case here it looks like the NBA goes by when the whistle was blown. I like the HS way better. I still think they made a mistake by not doing a jump ball. If the ref had blown the whistle instantly and before Oladipo gets the ball, then it is a jump. But because there was a tiny delay Orlando gets the ball even though clearly the the whistle was blown for the GT. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. There is no way that's right and if the NBA has a rule like that they should change it because it is totally understandable there would be a delay in blowing the whistle on plays like that. Your brain probably isn't going to interpret an unusual play like that as fast. Basically they are seeing the play as an inadvertent whistle. So just imagine that the ref blew the whistle on accident and it didn't have anything to do with the GT call. Rightly or wrongly they are ignoring that the whistle was blown for GT and instead are taking it when the whistle occurred as an IW which meant Orlando keeps the ball.

Also on the ball rolling out part
20 seconds to 105
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDe9GPhSrgE
it is subjective and yeah it probably was going to roll out. But looking at the video,when the touches occur and the location of the ball on the rim, I'm not convinced that was the right call. I think the ball was still going to bounce around there and I don't see how you can say with 100% certainty that it was going to roll out. It also looks like the Wizard player by hitting the rim causes the ball to bounce away too.

Agree. I could not say whether that ball was going in or not at that point. As such, you have to assume is still had a chance to go in.

It also looks like when the Wizard player hits the rim it causes the ball to bounce away a bit giving the appearance that it is rolling out. So close, tough replay. I wonder how long they took? I also wonder how many people they have looking at it and how a decision is reached.

-

http://www.nba.com/lakers/releases/l...0_replayCenter

I was reading about how in the Timberwolves game the replays took way too long. And for the play discussed above I understand how you can't get it right away. There needs to be a balance between the speed of the replay and getting the call right. Of course the main priority should be getting it right, but not at the cost of holding the game up which was the case with the Twolves last night. I would do a max 2 minute review. If it is unclear have a majority vote or uphold the original call. If need be do a jump at mid-court but the main issue is the review time needs to be shortened even if in the end the call is wrong.

The whole reason for the review process is to get the call right. To arbitrarily decide that the value of the process is based on a time limit, seems anathema to the original premise . . . "Why is it that the last place I look for something is always the place I find it?" . .
As annoying as a drawn-out review can be, it is still part of the process.

I disagree. The NBA is about entertainment, not solely I know, but you have to consider the fans watching on tv and in the stands, the players on the court, and I think the more important issue is having a replay system that works well and fast. If you have replays lasting over 3 minutes, and it sounds like it did in the TWolves game, then that hurts the NBA brand and the fan experience.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lillard...5748--nba.html
REPLAY ISSUES

The NBA revamped its replay system in the offseason, adding more referees in the replay center in New Jersey in hopes of speeding up the process. You never would've known that in the second half Monday night when several replays resulted in long waits for a final ruling. That included Wiggins' goaltending and a shot clock violation on the Blazers that was eventually ruled an inadvertent whistle. ''In the last two minutes, nothing went our way, including the 30 minutes it took to figure out a couple calls,'' Martin said. ''We'll learn from it.''

Does anything in the article tell us how long the replay reviews took, or is it just that they "felt" too long?

It's also about gambling and if "getting it right" means a difference in the spread / fantasy points, etc -- then the extra time isn't going to matter to those affected.