Incomplete Rule?
 

Rule 9-1 (Penalties {4}) does not address this situation: A1 at the line, B1, not in a lane space, crosses the 3-pt line early, followed by A2, in a lane space, entering the lane early. And I don't see a case play addressing this - any ideas?

I agree it's missing. Treat it as if it were one of the examples (or, perhaps, as if no examples were needed) in that Penalty section.

This play has provided Mark, Jr., and I with hours and hours of conversation as we have traveled to games together.

I am in the vet's office (my family thought they were going to have to put me down, LOL!) with our dog.

I do not have access to my Rules Books but over the years the three Rules Committee has rewritten the rule from a simple rule to apply: If B1 violates first followed by a violation by A2, we had Jump Ball (AP Arrow today); very simple and elegant. Now we have multiple scenarios in which one needs to be at least a Structural Engineer (like me) or a Mechanical Engineering student (like Junior) to decipher the rule.

I base my Ruling of going to the AP Arrow based upon the history of the Rule, making the AP Arrow the only logical choice.

MTD, Sr.

AP is only for simultaneous violation or 2nd violation by free thrower or his/her teammate behind the 3 pt line.

But for the life of me...I dont think I can remember EVER having a violation by nonmarked space opponent before the shot is released, or could see it happening without a fake from the free thrower.

You have never (with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley) had a Player located outside of the Three-Point Arc try to time his entry into the area inside the Three-Point Arc to happen just after Shooter releases his/her FTA?

MTD, Sr.

Yes. And "ignore the second violation is ONLY if both are in a marked lane space.

So, the OP is not covered. Use 2-3. I recommend using the arrow. I also agree it's not likely to happen.

Clearly you work higher-level games than I! :D

Not since they restricted them to entering after the ball hits the rim.

I would go with a double violation penalty.

Mark, Jr., and I have had players as high up as the JV level try it since the rule was changed. Players do not think!

MTD, Sr.

I’d be more inclined to treat in order of ocuurance. The delayed dead ball from B doesn’t cause the ball to become dead immediately. The violation from A does make the ball dead immediately. I’d give ball to B and move on....

Kelvin:

As noted earlier, as the three Rules Committees made this Rule more complicated, but trying to codify every possible scenario, the Committees forgot to include the Play we are discussing. Until the Committees either add this scenario to the Rules and assign a Penalty to it or the Committees could do the logical thing and turn the clock back 45 years or so and make the Rule simple (see the red highlighted sentence in my above comment) again: Which is the Ruling that Bob and I think would be the logical Ruling (great minds think alike).

MTD, Sr.

You’re right about the committee screwing up this rule. And I agree we need to go back to simple....

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.

Why would this NOT be a simultaneous violation? How is it different from B1 entering the lane early, followed by A1's try failing to hit the rim?

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