Apparently an oops that has been publicized.
 

I was sent this by my father.

I'd like to ask the officials working the game what they were actually reading, but it doesn't smell quite right.

Watertown Daily Times | Disputed finish favors Spartans

On South Jefferson's next possession, A. J. Chartrand, who scored 27 points for the Spartans (9-3 overall, 9-2 league), saw his driving layup spin out of the basket and go out of bounds with three seconds to play.

After a timeout, all Thousand Islands had to do was inbounds the ball successfully, and the game was likely over. But as the ball was thrown toward the mid-court area, the buzzer prematurely sounded with the clock reading 1.5 seconds.
The officials, veterans Mike Branski and Phil Goings, immediately blew their whistles to stop play and went to the scorer's table to confer. They determined that since it was an inadvertent whistle, a jump ball was required, which gave possession to South Jefferson.
...

Thousand Islands coach Scott LaLonde had three reasonable arguments as to why the referees' decision was the wrong ruling.
One, LaLonde said his player, Hanrahan, had possession of the ball when the buzzer and whistle sounded, which should have given the possession to the Vikings.
Second, LaLonde wondered why the clock was reset to three seconds. And third, he thought the ball should have been taken out under the basket where it was originally inbounded.
The officials said the inadvertent whistle was the only determining factor, and that LaLonde's protests were superseded by the rule book.
"I disagree with their interpretation," LaLonde said. "We had the ball on the inbounds pass, so why didn't we have it after the whistle blew?''
=======================================
Not sure if this would be a situation for 4-36-2b or 2c. If the clock started correctly on a deflection, then the throw-in was over, even though the horn sounded prematurely.

Am I missing something here? There is no reference to a deflection or anything but a long pass. If the ball never came inbounds, why would the AP arrow be involved? Just correct the clock and re-do the throw in. If the ball hit the flag hanging over the court, or something similar, reset the clock correctly and give the throw in to the other team.

For the coach to insist that his team had the ball makes me think that the ball did reach inbounds status, but catching the ball just as the whistle blows or immediately following would be easy for a coach to mistake as having the ball.

I'm thinking there is some missing information here.

That's why I wrote what I did. We don't know if the clock started properly or not. There is no description of the game action after the throw-in pass, but before the horn sounded. Without that information we cannot provide a ruling.

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

Peace

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

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

Peace

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.

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....

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.

Throw-in
 

During the throw in - if the ball was in the air and the officials blew the whistle, this would go to POI - which in this case would be the AP correct, resetting the clock to 3secs?

If the officials waited until possession in bounds, then the POI is team A's ball out of bounds closest spot, with some time needing to come off the clock for the catch. Therefore, Team A ball - reset clock to 2.7 secs (3 secs minus the .3 for the catch).

Why AP for this accidental whistle? Although there is no team control, the throw-in is not complete yet. I'm redoing the throw-in.

What's up(state)?
 

Any chance one of our New York group members here can inquire as to the missing information on this scenario and fill us in?