Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lotto
A.R. 178. A1 is attempting the second of two free throws. B2 violates the lane followed by a lane violation by A2. The official inadvertently blows his/her whistle, which stops play, before A1 releases the ball for his/her attempt. The officials re-administer the free-throw attempt by placing the ball at the disposal of A1 for his/her free-throw attempt. Before A1’s release of the ball for his/her try, B3 commits a lane violation. RULING: When A1’s free throw attempt is unsuccessful, he/she shall be awarded a substitute free throw. When A1’s attempt is successful, B2’s violation shall be ignored.
|
This is poorly written.
Why would they complicate the situation with a second violation by B3 during the replacement FT? It detracts from the point that was attempting to be made.
Also, no where in the ruling does it state that the delayed violation by B2 is still in effect during the replacement throw. It should be.
Furthermore, why does the ruling totally ignore what happened during the replacement FT? Shouldn't it at least state that A1 gets yet another try if that FT attempt was unsuccessful due to B3's violation?