While the penalty doesn't enumerate all of the cases, it is an oversight, not a declaration that one or both of these violations shouldn't be penalized. It is, in principle, the same as the case you describe.

It's exactly that. It is treated as a simultaneous violation and it goes to the AP per NCAA. In camps I've attended it was always taught as a violation by 1 in the box and 1 outside the box is simultaneous and thus AP. In the box always referred to the players lined up around the key but NOT the shooter.

Don't cases cover this? If defense violates first, then ignore offensive violation. Case 9.1.3 Sit C. I know the case cites two along the lane line. Defense is still one violating first even if coming from beyond 3-pt. arc.

And...

"Double violation. B's delayed violation is still a violation. It doesn't go away just because A violates too. A's makes the ball dead. This is no different than B violating and the shooter subsequently violating." The Case book specifically indicates to consider disconcertion.

Rule should be rewritten to take out 'Simultaneous' and insert 'Double. Who out there has ever had simultaneous free throw violations? However, we do occasionally have double violations, meaning a violation by the defensive team followed by a violation by the offensive team. Exceptions are already written into the rule.

But not all of them.

There are four cases (and in all of these, the defense violates first):

a) Both players on the lane -- enforce the first (penalty a)
b) Defense on the lane, offense not on the lane -- enforce both (penalty b)
c) Defense on on the lane, offense not on the lane -- enforce both (penalty b)
d) Defense not on the lane, offense on the lane -- not covered