Game 1 of the 2025 PBA Philippine Cup Finals between the TNT Tropang 5G and San Miguel Beermen was one for the books in more ways than one. It was well-played, had compelling ebbs and flows, and finished in breathtaking, controversy-marred fashion. And, ever since, PBA Deputy Commissioner Eric Castro has been trying to put some clarity into Mo Tautuaa’s waived off basket with 56 seconds left that ultimately turned the tide for the Grand Slam-seeking Tropa.
To some degree, the Deputy Commissioner has tried to do some damage control, holding an impromptu press conference right after Gam 1 and then granting an exclusive interview with Boom Gonzales in the One News show “Starting Lineup” on Monday—the day after D-Day.
Unfortunately, Eric Castro’s best efforts at providing clarity to the issue came a bit short as his pronouncements have only opened up a Pandora’s Box of questions that have yet been answered and will probably be left unanswered.
Here are five of them:
1. Is there a provision in the rulebook that specifically states that “pulling” the rim on a dunk is an automatic violation?
Deputy Commissioner Eric Castro’s official explanation—or at least the way he phrased it in the press conference—is that Tautuaa’s basket was nullified because he pulled the rim, thereby committing an automatic violation.
“As you’ve seen in the replay, when Mo dunked in the last 56 seconds, nahila niya ‘yong ring,” Castro pointed out confidently. “Regardless kung may tamaan siya na part ng ring, the fact na nahila niya ‘yong ring pababa is a violation already, considered offensive basket interference.”
The problem is, the provision he cited to back up his explanation doesn’t necessarily state that pulling the rim down is an automatic violation:
“An offensive player causes the backboard to vibrate or grasps the basket in such a way that, in the judgment of the official, the ball has been caused to enter the basket.”
This provision leads us to the next important question:
2. Who made the judgement that Tautuaa’s basket shouldn’t have counted and what was the basis?
The provision Castro provided unfortunately leaves a big gray area, mostly because of the phrase “in the judgment of the official.” Therefore, two things will have happened here. First, an official thought Tautuaa pulling the rim—never mind if it appeared to be part of the usual dunking motion—caused the ball to bounce into the basket. Second, that official would have initiated the review.
So, who was that official? In his exclusive interview with Gonzales (who asked softball questions, by the way) in One News’ “Starting Lineup,” Castro made it abundantly clear that none of the referees in Game 1—Mardy Montoya, Rommel Gruta, and Jerry Narandan—made that determination; instead, it was the technical committee that did so. In such case, who from the technical committee determined that the “pull” altered the ball’s trajectory enough to make it go in the basket? How did that person make such a determination? Was it made in real time or with the replay mechanism involved?
Just as important, was the final decision rendered unilaterally, or was it done after careful deliberation with every other official? Did they vote on it?
3. When—and how—exactly was the review initiated?
Piggybacking from the previous question, once someone from the technical committee deemed Tautuaa’s basket to be due to interference, when did the review begin? In his press conference right after Game 1, Castrol told reporters the technical committee had “been reviewing it habang live ball”—meaning, in the 50 seconds that lapsed between Tautaa’s basket in question and the next deadball, which was San Miguel’s Chris Ross forcing a jump ball with TNT’s Jordan Heading.
“It just so happened na tuluy-tuloy ‘yong game, there was no dead ball. Tapos around five seconds remaining, there was a jumpball between Heading and Chris Ross… We’ve been reviewing it habang live ball, but that’s the only time we’re able to announce it to our barker, the correction,” said Castro.
Does this mean the review began right after the ball went into the hoop? How was it triggered? How long did it actually take?
4. Were the two teams informed that a review had been initiated?
For something that would directly affect the score, it stands to reason that both teams would’ve (or should’ve) been notified in whatever way that the technical committee was reviewing whether a basket should count or not. Or does protocol dictate that such reviews are done in a vacuum, known only to the members of the technical committee and no one else?
5. Does Eric Castro know the PBA’s rules by heart?
It seemed that way in his impromptu press conference in the immediate aftermath of Game 1. He even said, with utmost certainty: “In the event that there was no dead ball at natapos ‘yong game, under our rules, we can still correct it. So, the possibility of winning the game at the end, minus the correction, because of walang dead ball, mangyayari ‘yon.”
A day later in the interview with Gonzales, Castro retracted his initial statement, saying instead: “Last night, I just want to correct myself, we can no longer correct the goaltending and basket interference once the game clock has expired.” In a vacuum, one can chalk it up to the adage, “People make mistakes.” But bigger picture, it could indicate that the affable Deputy Commissioner might not be as well versed with the rules to begin with to make such a glaring error. Either way, it’s bad optics to say the least for not only Castro but for the PBA as a whole.
——————————————————————————
Rebanse tried to find ways to get in touch with Deputy Commissioner Eric Castro through its still very limited channels and connections but to no avail. That being said, it remains open to hear what the soft-spoken PBA official has to say about these questions.
