[M T]

I believe I remember the announcer saying that the illegal contact had been ruled to be after time expired. The announcer could have been wrong or I could have misheard, of course. If that was correct, I guess the contact before the buzzer was ruled incidental on review. Strange ruling, though.

As I watched the replay, I  thought maybe the female ref who raised her hand was just signalling the end of the quarter.  Her signal for a foul a few seconds earlier was different (bent arm rather than straight, quickly signaling who the foul was on).  Here, she raised her hand coincident with the end of time and she held it steady and much straighter.

Had I not heard the announcers say that the official was coming over to explain it, and then we hear a female voice claim the foul was after time expired (while we see the other 2 officials at the scorer's table), I would have believed the announcers misunderstood.

In the video replay you see the official clock showing 0.4 during the time of the arm-to-arm contact but this was apparently not called.  But from about 0.3 to 0.0, there was the body contact that was what the official called.  The on-screen clock shown in one view is not official and is 0.1 behind the official clock.  Interestingly, you see the official had started raising her hand when that unofficial clock still shows 0.1.  If she witnessed a foul that occurred after the official clock expired, she must have both extremely fast reactions AND powerful muscles to move her arm that much in at most 0.05 seconds.

  0.4 transitioning to 0.3. End of arm-to-arm contact and block.
0.2 Body contact has begun.
0.2 Body contact has begun
  0.2 transitioning to 0.1
  0.1  Body contact is almost over. Fouled player is separating from fouler.
0.1
  0.0 to -0.1 Ref has started raising her arm.

I would rule that the illegal contact occurred at 0.2.

[M T]

I believe I remember the announcer saying that the illegal contact had been ruled to be after time expired. The announcer could have been wrong or I could have misheard, of course. If that was correct, I guess the contact before the buzzer was ruled incidental on review. Strange ruling, though.

As I watched the replay, I  thought maybe the female ref who raised her hand was just signalling the end of the quarter.  Her signal for a foul a few seconds earlier was different (bent arm rather than straight, quickly signaling who the foul was on).  Here, she raised her hand coincident with the end of time and she held it steady and much straighter.

Had I not heard the announcers say that the official was coming over to explain it, and then we hear a female voice claim the foul was after time expired (while we see the other 2 officials at the scorer's table), I would have believed the announcers misunderstood.

In the video replay you see the official clock showing 0.4 during the time of the arm-to-arm contact but this was apparently not called.  But from about 0.3 to 0.0, there was the body contact that was what the official called.  The on-screen clock shown in one view is not official and is 0.1 behind the official clock.  Interestingly, you see the official had started raising her hand when that unofficial clock still shows 0.1.  If she witnessed a foul that occurred after the official clock expired, she must have both extremely fast reactions AND powerful muscles to move her arm that much in at most 0.05 seconds.

  0.4 transitioning to 0.3. End of arm-to-arm contact and block.
0.2 Body contact has begun.
0.2 Body contact has begun
  0.2 transitioning to 0.1
  0.1  Body contact is almost over. Fouled player is separating from fouler.
0.1
  0.0 to -0.1 Ref has started raising her arm.

I would rule that the illegal contact occurred at 0.2.