In Gilas Pilipinas’ 82-81 overtime win over Jordan last Friday at the Mall of Asia Arena, in the first of its two games in the fourth window of the FIBA World Cup Qualifiers for Qatar 2028, there was one controversial incident that was officially deemed a “lucky break” for our Pinoy ballers — and one that eventually helped us pull off that come-from-behind win.

It happened with the game tied at 66-all and about 3:10 remaining in regulation, following a Dwight Ramos layup miss. While Kai Sotto and a Jordan big man were contesting the rebound, the basketball got wedged between the left side of the ring support and the backboard.

But Sotto, at 7-foot-1, simply dislodged the ball, grabbed the offensive rebound and put in an easy putback to give Gilas a 68-66 lead.

Did the three FIBA referees — one from Lebanon, one from Kazakhstan and the third from Chinese-Taipei — turn blind?

As Sotto slowly ran back on defense after the easy two, he was even seen smiling after all three referees apparently missed what had just happened.

The FIBA World Cup account on X/Twitter even posted a video of the incident with the caption: “Perks of being taller than everyone else.”

For Jordan’s players and head coach, however, it was simply too unbelievable for all three referees to have missed it. The one behind the goal understandably might have but the other two? No wonder their violent objections to the no-call.

The right call should have been to nullify the basket and declare a jump-ball situation, which would then have been settled through the possession arrow.

Why was it controversial — and potentially crucial? Because the game went into overtime, and Jordan eventually lost by only one point.

Those two Sotto points could very well have changed the outcome of the crucial match.

Of course, there is no way of knowing what would have happened had those two points been taken away from Gilas. Jordan could still have lost. But two points are still two points. They could have been a game-changer, a momentum starter or a momentum stopper, depending on which side of the fence one is on.

With coaching challenges now available, and with provisions for reviewable and correctable errors by game officials already existing in FIBA basketball — and even in the Philippine Basketball Association — one can only wonder why this particular incident could not be corrected, or at least reviewed.

Apparently, simply because a wedged-ball situation like this is not among the conditions that merit a challenge, review or correction under the present FIBA rules.

Based on Article 44 of the Official FIBA Basketball Rules, there are 16 specific reviewable situations — five at the end of a quarter, game or overtime, four during the last two minutes, and seven at any time during the game.

None specifically covers a wedge-ball situation or a non-call similar to what Sotto was able to get away with.

I believe this is something FIBA should consider adding when it updates its rules, which, if I’m not mistaken, is due next month. The PBA should consider adopting it as well, if it is not yet included in its own list of “reviewables” or “correctibles.”

It is only fair, especially in the spirit of rules designed to correct errors by officials who, after all, are only human — particularly errors that can potentially decide the outcome of a game.

Rules should be rules. And “lucky breaks” like a wedge-ball judgement non-call should never be allowed to decide a game.

Because had Jordan been the team that got away with it and Gilas Pilipinas had been the one that lost by one point in the end, there would probably have been a huge outcry from millions of passionate Filipino basketball fans. And honestly, would we still have considered it just a “lucky break” then?