Apparently an oops that has been publicized.

[JRutledge]

I agree, there is a lot missing in what took place based on the article alone.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I agree, there is a lot missing in what took place based on the article alone.

What's not missing are the names of the officials!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

What's not missing are the names of the officials!

I agree that is messed up. Because we clearly know that the media has the entire story as they do so often.

Peace

[BubbaRef]

Would they have gone to the AP because there is no team control on a throw in and possibly the horn sounded before team control was evident? Yea there is a lot of info missing to actually come up with the correct ruling. Would like to see it on YouTube if possible to come to any actual ruling.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by BubbaRef

Would they have gone to the AP because there is no team control on a throw in and possibly the horn sounded before team control was evident? Yea there is a lot of info missing to actually come up with the correct ruling. Would like to see it on YouTube if possible to come to any actual ruling.

If the whistles sounded during the throw-in, then the lack of team control doesn't matter. The throw-in wouldn't have ended, and the game would be resumed with a throw-in from the original spot with the full amount of time on the board.

If the ball had been tipped, then the horn sounded, then the whistles, before control had been established then an A/P throw-in would be correct. However, putting the full three seconds back on the clock wouldn't then make sense. If the officials could determine with definite knowledge how much time there was between the tip and the whistle that should be taken from 3.

If the ball was controlled before the horn and whistle, then that team should have had the throw-in. Same as above on the time.

None of that, however, is clear from the story. What's also not clear is if the clock started prematurely, or if the horn sounded prematurely. We could speculate, but it wouldn't do much good.

[Juulie Downs]

The story is so clearly biased that there's no way to know if it even gets it's part of the story correct. I can't even imagine calling it reporting. It's an opinion page piece if ever there was one.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

The story is so clearly biased that there's no way to know if it even gets it's part of the story correct. I can't even imagine calling it reporting. It's an opinion page piece if ever there was one.

Yeah, it had my "BS" detector twitching pretty hard......

As others have said, way too much missing information....

[Amesman]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

The story is so clearly biased that there's no way to know if it even gets it's part of the story correct. I can't even imagine calling it reporting. It's an opinion page piece if ever there was one.

Respectfully disagree here, Juuuulie. Once you get past the "sick to the stomach" "with good reason" lead (a doozy), I thought the reporter did a pretty good job of recounting what happened -- with the exception of letting us know when/how/if the ball was touched on the inbounding play. That and possibly the "reasonable" arguments phrase (how does he know if the coach has reasonable arguments unless he goes to some authority or is an authority to speak out?).

When I skimmed by the lead paragraph (which I did somehow the first time), I didn't know which of the teams might have been in his paper's main circulation area (or if both are). The reporter is complimentary to both sides' players. And he also sought comment from both coaches, etc.

When I first read it, I thought the losing team might have actually inbounded the ball and THEN made a long throw across the division line (still a possibility because of the info gap).

And, sorry, but if this is such a high-profile game to report about, the officials' names are fair game. To truly neutral observers, it tells them veterans were on the call and likely got it right. You leave out "veterans" and it casts a different light.

Like others, my main quibble is the reporter apparently didn't try to find out from an official (either working the game or in his Rolodex) what the official reasoning was. But then again, he might not have had the time. A follow-up article, even small, would be appropriate to clear it up in readers (and participants') minds. It happens all the time in many news outlets. So far, it appears there's been none.