FT situation.
 

A1 shooting 2nd of 2 fts, B1 goes straight in and makes contact before ball hits rim. I called the foul, cleared the lane and let player reshoot ft since it was missed and we gave A the ball under the basket.

Correct? Contact was before ball hit rim.

Can it be both a violation and a foul?

Yes. You have a delayed violation on B, and a foul on the same player before the ball became dead.

Assuming of course that the contact rose to the level of a foul.

the violation would allow for re-trying the free throw, while the foul would lead to the same team getting the throw-in.

Or more free throws. :)

You appear unaware of this NFHS resource. It answers your question.

http://nfhs.org/sports-resource-cont...tions-2015-16/

I said this is the way I administered it. But after conversation last night with other officials it caused some doubt in my mind. Thank you for the resource.

The OP mentioned the team getting the ball, so that's why I said that in my response.

Fair point, I was already off in dream land.

I assume you mean that B1 makes contact with the FT shooter? If he's boxing out someone on the lane, contact is allowed before the ball hits the rim, in which case you could have a foul and possession (or bonus free throws), or possibly nothing at all if the contact was not egregious.

The OP was right, this is confusing.

Why would contact need to be egregious for you to have a whistle? "Boxing out" is a foul if they move the player. No reason to wait for 'egregious' whatever contact that is.

Maybe the word egregious is a bit strong, but my point is still the same, if the boxing out action is against another player on the lane line, you could have a foul and possession or nothing, depending on how you judge the contact.

A1 released free throw, B1 came straight in and dislodged A1 before ball hit the rim, A1 missed the free throw.

We have been instructed to go with a violation unless the contact rose to the level of it needed to be called. Then we have a violation and foul.

I'm pretty sure the POE reads "contact on the shooter", it doesn't specify contact rising to a certain level. It seems to me that the NFHS wants contact on the free throw shooter to be an automatic foul. However do as Rome instructs you to do.

As we discussed multiple times when the POE / pre-season guide came out -- many (and maybe most) places have said this is NOT an automatic foul and needs to be judged like other contact.

That's why I said when in Rome.

Did they change the incidental contact rule, too?

Listen, I get it. I just know how we've been instructed to call it here.

Believe me, I can understand that.

NFHS uses the word contact a lot. For the purpose of reading case books and test questions contact is always deemed a foul. NFHS will say incidental contact to make it clear they're talking about contact that isn't supposed to have a whistle on it.

I've always understood 'contact' by NFHS to mean a foul. Not that all contact is a foul.

This situation was warranted to call a foul. It was already getting chippy. Then on the free throw (from C), I watched the defensive player take a straight path into the shooter and root him out. In my judgement, the player absolutely knew that as soon as the ball was released, he was going to be making good contact.

Then I like the idea of the violation AND the foul.