FT - delayed violation and foul

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Raymond

The replacement free throw would be a cleared lane b/c the ball is to become dead after the free throw.

The 2 free throws for the 2nd foul would have players lined up, otherwise what would be the status of the ball after the 2nd set of free throws?

I don't really understand why we clear the lane for the first shot. What's different about this than shooting free throws after a foul against a three point shooter who missed the shot? Seems silly to clear the lane for the first shot and then bring everyone back for the second and third. Why do we bother having players lined up for first of 2 free throws then?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I don't really understand why we clear the lane for the first shot.

Because it's now a false-multiple foul (I think). And we clear the lane for the first (set of) FTs in this instance. Imagine if B violated but A fouled. We'd clear the lane and then go to the other end and have everyone lined up.

This just "seems" wrong because everyone was on the lane, then they're off, then they're on again. But, by the book, it's the right thing to do.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Because it's now a false-multiple foul (I think). And we clear the lane for the first (set of) FTs in this instance. Imagine if B violated but A fouled. We'd clear the lane and then go to the other end and have everyone lined up.

This just "seems" wrong because everyone was on the lane, then they're off, then they're on again. But, by the book, it's the right thing to do.

I get it if different people are shooting the free throws or we are switching ends, but if the same person is shooting all 3 free throws, it just seems like a waste of time.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I get it if different people are shooting the free throws or we are switching ends, but if the same person is shooting all 3 free throws, it just seems like a waste of time.

If it was someone else shooting the first free throw, it would all make sense to you, right?

So all this means is that there is no exception that applies if the person shooting that "dead" free throw is going to be the same as the one who shoots the "live" free throws after.

Indeed, in many situations you might not know that it was going to be the same shooter.

All that said, if you had the players on the line for that free throw, and that was the worst mistake you made in the game, you'd have a damned good game . . .

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

If it was someone else shooting the first free throw, it would all make sense to you, right?

So all this means is that there is no exception that applies if the person shooting that "dead" free throw is going to be the same as the one who shoots the "live" free throws after.

Indeed, in many situations you might not know that it was going to be the same shooter.

All that said, if you had the players on the line for that free throw, and that was the worst mistake you made in the game, you'd have a damned good game . . .

+1. Anytime the ball is to become dead after a final (or single) FT for a particular foul, the lane is cleared. We'd need a written exception for this case. It would certainly be a logical exception, but it's probably not something that the rules committee would waste time on unless these type of scenarios started occurring with noticeably greater frequency.