It's either the first:
- dead ball situation
- timeout
- or end of the period
So as I understand it, whichever of those comes first, dun ka lang pwede mag-issue ng challenge on the shot.
Where did you get this story?
Because as per the announcement in the arena, the shot was called as 2 points, was challenged with 27 seconds left, and then was ruled a 3-ptr.
In any case, I would like to hear Andy Jao's ruling on this as soon as possible. Hopefully before the UE-UST game today.
the way the sentence was constructed. It's either the first deadball situation, timeout, AND before the end of the period concerned. any lawyer or who took up basic oblicon can say that you can raise it at the end of the period.
In any case,
checking the video at the 2:08 mark as Von takes the shot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kiuq0w6gtXAyou can see that the ref #13 raises his hand to signify that a 3 point shot was being taken. His motion to fully signify the completion of the 3 by raising both hands is interrupted when Von bumps into him hard from behind while running back for defense. However, the ref had already signified the 3 pointer initially with his first motion so that should prove that it was the table officials who neglected to notice the 3-call due to the ref getting bumped.
Also, if you were at araneta "the review" lasted less than a minute. it wasn't really a video review rather it would prove that the scorer's table was mistaken in crediting it only a 2pt. shot instead of a 3pt. shot.
In any case, FEU BULOK! (sorry, had to let that out. this does not extend to the student and alumnus of the school. just with Montinola, et al. )
Coach Nash, after the loss: "We shot ourselves in the foot. We missed 19FTs buong game, we missed 11 in the 4th qtr so we can't really complain."