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The officials said the inadvertent whistle was the only determining factor, and that LaLonde's protests were superseded by the rule book.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?

Without regard to the clock, accidental whistles are always POI.

Consider this, though. What if A1 was still holding the ball for the throw in when the accidental whistle blew? No team control, so would you go AP? Of course not, because it's during a throw in. The same concept still applies if the throw has been released but not touched; POI is the throw in.

mbyron thanks: 4-36-2b

So would the throw in be at the end line or closest spot to where the ball was? 3secs back on the clock?

The key here is to define ball location.

Go back to the end line and put all the time back on.

Now .... the REST of the story
 

Got a hold of the reporter who wrote the article in question and it cleared up a lot. I'll post his e-mails below.

But overall, it sounds like our striped brethren nailed it (though I told the reporter I'd get full confirmation here -- sounds like he's sharp and willing to learn) and an inattentive clock operator needs a talkin'-to.

From the reporter:

"TI inbounded the ball under the basket and the kid threw the ball toward mid-court. Two or three players on each side jumped for the ball and I believe several kids touched it. The Hanrahan kid looked like he might have outjumped everybody for ball, but the horn sounded I believe before he had possession. LaLonde [his coach] thought otherwise.

"But the only way to be sure is if there was a replay, which of course there wasn’t. I was not aware of the rule that a clock malfunction was the same as an inadvertent whistle, but I bowed to the officials who both are among the best in our area. On the surface, it didn’t seem fair for Thousand Islands not to get the ball back. But If it’s a rule, it’s a rule. The fact that TI allowed the South Jeff kid to make a lay-up at the end was probably overlooked.

"If you have any input I’d appreciate a note back.

"And, yes, it was difficult to describe all that happened in those final frantic seconds. And as you said, it was a difficult game to officiate because both teams were going to the basket hard. But the officiating had nothing to do with the outcome.

"Here’s what I was told about the horn.

"There was a timeout with three seconds left. The clock operator set the automatic timer for the timeout, but then forgot to turn it off before the timeout was over. Thus, the timeout horn went off when the ball was in the air. The TI fans booed the officials for that call. They should have gone after their own clock man.

"It’s just a good thing this didn’t happen at South Jefferson."

The question is, where was the ball when the whistle blew rather than when the horn sounded.

If he threw it toward "midcourt," let's assume it was between the top of the key and the division line, or just at "midcourt," which would make sense with the ensuing throw-in description from the article.

Making it too tough!
 

They kicked it, bottom line. It is POI. Team Control does not matter. THe POI is the throw-in. They should have NOT went with the arrow.

Not if the ball was touched (ending the throw-in) but not controlled before the stoppage.

Lesson: Always wait for two horns on time outs.

Looks like the throwin was over, based on the fact it had been touched, but not controlled, by various players before the horn.

Okay, I need to rephrase "the question." I don't really care "where" it physically was. The question is whether it was controlled by a player before the whistle blew. Even if the horn sounded before control, if control was gained prior to the whistle, you have team control for POI purposes.

Thanks for all the replies.

I'm from the area, but moved, and my father was telling me what he knew (although it was predominately from the article).

It is (more) clear that there probably was no clock malfunction.

It is also likely that the throw-in had ended prior to the ball becoming dead.

It also seems that team control was never established.

Sounds like they probably got it right.

Although, answers to those three would be pretty important. And it might be tough to know if there was a clock malfunction (as an official) with a 50/50 ball in the air and several kids jumping for it. It might also be tough to know whether someone had control (i.e. a tough judgment call) in such a case.

Uh, right. Sorry about that, but I'm with you all the way on this one regardless. Apparently the officials ruled no control -- coach begged to differ, but he doesn't get a whistle and the stripes, so the vets did in fact get it right ... other than not waiting for the second horn, that is.

Can't believe all that happened before the second horn, even if it was a full TO.

So here's one extender to this whole thing: Since the whistle is obviously the play-stopper, when do you advise ignoring the horn and yelling / motioning to the players to try to "play on" in a given situation? Or do we just have to be resigned that if something is amiss with the horn's timing, the clock operator is going to drag all of us down with him/her?

I'd say this close to the end of the game, the horn is hard to ignore because everyone is waiting for it. In the middle of the third quarter, I'm more likely to tell them to play on. In this situation, the ref may well have blown his whistle as soon as he heard the horn.

This. If I am the official with the clock, I'm whistling as soon as the horn goes in this situation.

Just as an update:

Watertown Daily Times | Do over: Spartans, Vikings at odds

I like how the league uses the "best-two-out-of-three" method for solving disputes.:rolleyes:

What I don't know is what the actual story (or sequence of events) that the officials provided. IMO, this is the only scenario that matters, and if the protest is upheld, the game should resume following proper rules application for this scenario.

Of course, my real opinion is that the game is over. Condolences to the losers.

This bothers me:
"To the naked eye, it was hard to determine whether any player had touched the ball, or any player had possession when the horn went off. The protest committee was not allowed to look at a film of the final seconds, according to Kowalick. "You can only protest the rule, not a judgment call by the officials," he said."

The correct ruling depends on if the ball was touched (throw-in ended) before the "inadvertent whistle". Film would confirm it either way. Touched = officials got it right. Not touched = they got it wrong. Any testimony is just worthless, biased opinion.

Confusing. How can they impose a rule if they (apparently) don't know what the judgment call was -- and aren't willing to look at it on film that is available? Two-out-of-three, indeed. One way or another, it doesn't sound like the officials are getting much support. :mad:

Again, we seem to not have all the information. If the officials gave their side of the story and why they did what they did, then the only question should be whether they applied the rule correctly based on what they judged (was the ball touched or wasn't it) occurred.

Strange.

Sounds like a potential re-enactment of the '72 Olympics basketball final.