im putting the time back on the clock.

Of course you would, junior. :(
Now please cite an NFHS rule permitting you to do so.

The officials erroneously announced a 1-1 bonus, therefore the clock should not have started and the officials screwed up. In this case I'm not going to penalize the teams for our mess up and there is no rule or case play that says we cannot put the time back on in this case. I'll go with the common sense approach here.

You can play the semantics game all you like but the officials messed up and there is no way I'm not adding time back on in this case.

Actually, the officials erroneously announced two FTs instead of the 1&1.
However, the announcing of erroneous information does not automatically make the ball dead if the first FT attempt is unsuccessful. The proof--Look at the Case Book ruling. If you were correct, how could the ball remain live and play continue when both teams go after it? By your analysis the ball has to be dead and the clock shouldn't start. Sorry, but you are incorrect and the ball isn't dead until whistled so by an official and the clock runs until that point too.

A case which we have discussed on here several times is what to do if A3 rebounds the miss unchallenged by any player of Team B and quickly scores a basket before any of the officials can react. There was no whistle until after the ball passed through the basket. The NFHS ruling is that this basket must count. It's not a correctable error. It's a screw up by the officials and they have to live with it.

You really should learn to officiate by the rules and not by what is palatable to you. Going by the what the rules say is common sense.

BTW still waiting for you (or anyone else) to cite an NFHS rule allowing you to restore time in the presented situation.

If the officials give the ball to the wrong team for a throw-in and notice it after the ball has been inbounded and 3 seconds have elapsed are you going to nix that action and put the time back on the clock too? Would following the rule here be just semantics to you too?

I read the OP wrong. In this case I wouldn't put 2.9 seconds back on but I would probably put 2.5 as stated earlier since the ball would be dead on the rebound due to inactivity by one team.

As for this scenario once the throw in is complete its to late.

Got a rule to support that claim?

Again the Case Book clearly says that the officials need to whistle the play dead. I think that I'll go with what's written in the NFHS book. That seems like common sense.

PS What about the play in which A3 rebounds and scores prior to any whistle? Are you claiming that was a dead ball on the rebound too?

There is a case study on officials screwing up 1&1 vs 2 and how the players react on the rebound.

It's 8.6.1 But it doesn't say anything about putting time back on the clock.

SITUATION: A1 is about to attempt the first of a one and one free throw situation. The administrating official steps in and erroneously informs players that two free throws will be taken. A1's first attempt is unsuccessful. The missed free throw is rebound by; (a) B1, with all other players motionless in anticipation of another throw; (b) A2, with all other players motionless in anticipation of another throw; or (c) B2 with several players from both teams attempting to secure the rebound. The officials recognize their error at this point.

RULING: In (a) and (b), the officials error clearly put one team at a disadvantage (players stood motionless and didn't attempt to rebound). Play should be ruled dead immediately and resumed using the AP procedure. In (c), both teams made and attempt to rebound despite the official's error and had an equal opportunity to gain possession of the rebound. Play should continue.

However rule

5.10.2 art 1...The referee may correct an obvious mistake by the time to start or stop the clock properly only when he/she has definite information relative to the time involved. The exact time observed by the official may be placed on the clock.
5.10.2 art 2...If the referee determines that the clock malfunctioned or was not started/stopped properly, or if the clock did not run, an officials count or other official information may be used to make correction.

I don't think its a reach to say we could stop the play if only one team plays the ball and put the time back on the clock, if the officials knew what was on the clock when the free throw took place.

The only way I can figure that you could POSSIBLY put time back on the clock is if you claim that the whistle was blown when the ball was first touched on the rebound. But not only is this not true in the OP, but it would almost never be true, as the recognition that not both teams reacted takes at least some amount of process time. I don't see how you could justify putting time back on the clock other than, "It just seems like the right thing to do." Unfortunately, sometimes when officials screw up it costs teams. That's why we work so hard at not doing that.

Thanks for posting the case.

Bold text: Ideally the officials rule it dead immediately. If that doesn't happen and seconds run off the clock I agree with you it's not a reach.

Your reference to 5.9.2 art 1, is actually Rule Book 5-10-1, and refers only to ". . . a mistake made by the timer . . ." In the situation being discussed, the mistake is by the officials, and not by the timer.
5-9-1 allows the timer to start the clock, ". . . if the official neglects to signal . . ."

Three seconds left in the game and you, in error, call 2 shots instead of a 1&1. Home is up by one point and is on the line. H1 misses shot and H2 is the only player who runs in for the rebound and gets the ball. Official brain farts, chops the clock, then blows his whistle after three seconds to correct the situation.

When my assigner calls me to chew me out on how I let my crew do this I'd rather have been the crew that put time on the clock. I'm sure it's different for other assigners, but I could see losing my varsity schedule for being the one to brain fart and then not putting time on the clock. I'm in trouble either way, but I'd pick put time on the clock.

I think it is pretty clear, using article 5, that time should not be put back on the clock. And I quote, "Points scored, consumed time, and additional activity, which may occur prior to the recognition of an error, shall not be nullified."

johnny d just quoted the rule reference that I'd use. Seems to me it was done correctly on the court.