TjgtAg08 said:
BusterAg said:
bobinator said:
Yeah the officials obviously decided that the whistle happened before the shot attempt. Nothing else makes any sense.
That's why I said once they blew the whistle while the ball was in play their options were limited.
There is no way that a whistle blown with 0.6 seconds left during that try interrupted play.
There is also no way that the officials face as much scrutiny this week if they had called the game at that point.
The officials options were not limited. Super easy to call the game there. If they had, this would have been a complete non-story.
You are wrong here as it pertains to this specific situation. In any sport, if there is an inadvertent whistle to stop play while the ball is being possessed, the is no option for the officials to decide to "go on with the result of the play." The only option is to revert back to the point in time on the clock where the whistle was blown and proceed with the game (inbound in basketball, new snap in football).
If the ball is not possessed at the time of the whistle (during a shot in basketball, during a kick/fumble/pass in football), then the officials will let the remainder of the play stand if there is a clear an obvious result.
The refs in that game clearly ruled that the whistle occurred while the Auburn player still possessed the ball, thus it reverts back to Auburn ball, side inbounds.
We can argue whether the whistle should have been blown (it absolutely should not have) or if that was the correct call or not once it was blown (whether the shot happened before or after the whistle), but once the rule was made, there is ZERO option to "let the play continue."
In high-school basketball, in my chapter at least, a whistle that is sounded that does not interrupt play is not considered an inadvertent whistle.
I know that is different for Football, though.
Not 100% sure about NCAA basketball.
Still, if an inadvertent whistle had been sounded very, very close to when the ball was released by Auburn on a try, that whistle was not going to impact the result of the game. An official that is most concerned with being anally technical might give the ball back to Auburn because that is what the rulebooks says to do. An official with any testicular fortitude would defer to the core principle of not letting your mistake impact the outcome of the game, and simply call the game. It was a close enough call that the better call was to call the game to follow that core principle. A much better decision in my opinion, and a much better official in my opinion.
Thank you for helping me more clearly illustrate my point.
