[M T]

[Edit: You beat me to it, but since I posted this before I saw your post, I'll leave it.]

I concur that the episode started with Belibi's stuffing of the shot [this happens at 3:29 left in Q3], which was correctly ruled a jump ball [with 3 seconds left on the shot clock].  Because the arrow favored GU, they got the ball out of bounds.  On the throw in, the ball hits Kiana's foot and is ruled a kicked ball.  The refs signal to [correctly] put 20 seconds on the shot clock [much to Kiana's dismay, but that's the rule].  However, at that point [based on my recollection, not from anything apparent on the video], the arrow was initially switched to Stanford but then was switched back to GU on Missy's insistence.  We then got a little vocal behind the scorer's table while play resumed and, upon a subsequent stoppage of play --within the next 30-45 seconds, IIRC, and, indeed, the incident mentioned earlier in this thread where Missy "iced" Kiana -- Missy came over and gave the explanation to the scorer that I quoted above.  BTW, I used quotes for Missy because I was able to hear the whole conversation and, with some allowance for extraneous noise [but without any need to translate from Ukrainian], that's my best recollection of what it sounded like she was saying.  In other words, she definitely was NOT upset that the arrow was still pointing to Gonzaga, she was explaining [as indicated] why it was supposed to be pointing to Gonzaga, where it, indeed, remained until the next jump ball situation.

I was wrong.

Obviously you saw the details better than me.  The video shows you are correct about the extra changes of the possession arrow. (I'll send you the details I see in the video) and had a somewhat accurate quotation.  The scorer properly did not change the possession arrow until the inbound (and the kick) happened.  When Missy turned to tell the scorer Williams's number, she must have seen the arrow change.   But, Missy ruled (properly) that the arrow should not have been changed on the first inbound (but should have been changed on the 2nd inbound).

The alternating-possession procedure starts when an official places
the ball at the disposal of a player for a throw-in. The alternating-possession
procedure ends and the arrow is reversed immediately when a passed ball legally
touches an inbounds player, when a player, who is located on the playing court,
touches and causes the ball to be out of bounds, or when the throw-in team
commits a throw-in violation.

Missy apparently ruled that the ball did not touch Williams legally, so the arrow
should not have been changed on that first throw-in, and expected it to be changed
on the 2nd throw-in (which it wasn't).  She was (reasonably) upset that the scorer
didn't make the arrow change at the proper time. 
(I wouldn't have known this distinction.)

[Btw, notice that if either team commits a foul before the throw-in, this rule doesn't
allow for the arrow to be changed until after the foul shot (perhaps at the other end of the court)!  This rule seems
flawed to me.  I also don't know the intended difference between
"inbounds player" and "player, who is located on the playing court"]

[M T]

[Edit: You beat me to it, but since I posted this before I saw your post, I'll leave it.]

I concur that the episode started with Belibi's stuffing of the shot [this happens at 3:29 left in Q3], which was correctly ruled a jump ball [with 3 seconds left on the shot clock].  Because the arrow favored GU, they got the ball out of bounds.  On the throw in, the ball hits Kiana's foot and is ruled a kicked ball.  The refs signal to [correctly] put 20 seconds on the shot clock [much to Kiana's dismay, but that's the rule].  However, at that point [based on my recollection, not from anything apparent on the video], the arrow was initially switched to Stanford but then was switched back to GU on Missy's insistence.  We then got a little vocal behind the scorer's table while play resumed and, upon a subsequent stoppage of play --within the next 30-45 seconds, IIRC, and, indeed, the incident mentioned earlier in this thread where Missy "iced" Kiana -- Missy came over and gave the explanation to the scorer that I quoted above.  BTW, I used quotes for Missy because I was able to hear the whole conversation and, with some allowance for extraneous noise [but without any need to translate from Ukrainian], that's my best recollection of what it sounded like she was saying.  In other words, she definitely was NOT upset that the arrow was still pointing to Gonzaga, she was explaining [as indicated] why it was supposed to be pointing to Gonzaga, where it, indeed, remained until the next jump ball situation.

I was wrong.

Obviously you saw the details better than me.  The video shows you are correct about the extra changes of the possession arrow. (I'll send you the details I see in the video) and had a somewhat accurate quotation.  The scorer properly did not change the possession arrow until the inbound (and the kick) happened.  When Missy turned to tell the scorer Williams's number, she must have seen the arrow change.   But, Missy ruled (properly) that the arrow should not have been changed on the first inbound (but should have been changed on the 2nd inbound).

The alternating-possession procedure starts when an official places
the ball at the disposal of a player for a throw-in. The alternating-possession
procedure ends and the arrow is reversed immediately when a passed ball legally
touches an inbounds player, when a player, who is located on the playing court,
touches and causes the ball to be out of bounds, or when the throw-in team
commits a throw-in violation.

Missy apparently ruled that the ball did not touch Williams legally, so the arrow
should not have been changed on that first throw-in, and expected it to be changed
on the 2nd throw-in (which it wasn't).  She was (reasonably) upset that the scorer
didn't make the arrow change at the proper time. 
(I wouldn't have known this distinction.)

[Btw, notice that if either team commits a foul before the throw-in, this rule doesn't
allow for the arrow to be changed until after the foul shot (perhaps at the other end of the court)!  This rule seems
flawed to me.  I also don't know the intended difference between
"inbounds player" and "player, who is located on the playing court"]