The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 15, 2004, 06:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 271
Here is what the casebook says(NFHS)

if discovered before the ball is at the disposal of the FT
blow the whistle and reset the FT attempt.

if discovered after the ball is at the disposal or in flight
blow whislte immediately call a simultaneous violation
go to the AP if last shot if more to follow shoot those with the correct alignment.

if discovered after succesful attempt or after rebounding off the rim ignore the violation

see 9.1.2 sit b

so in the original play it would be a sim violation.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 16, 2004, 10:17am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,856
BBR called it a Double Violation...that's what I have always said it would be also.

What's the difference between a Double Violation and a Simultaneous Violation?

RD
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 16, 2004, 10:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,217
don't have the rulebook here again, but the rules have changed on violations. Used to be that if A violated by stepping into the lane then B violated by doing the same, it was a double violation. Now it is only a violation if they happen simultaneously. Result is the same.

That said, the casebook and what you can do in a game situation are two different things. Ball is in flight and you see the violation, your whistle can come after the ball has come off the rim and you are not in violation of the casebook, which refers to when you see the violation, not when your whistle sounds. By holding your whistle to see if the ball goes in, you avoid punishing something tha the rules try their best to avoid having you call in the first place. this is a technical violation of what the casebook says, but it really makes the most sense. Why punish a violation that has no impact on the game?
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 16, 2004, 10:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 271
Coach it does seem to make sense but that has never stopped the rules makers in the past. If they wanted us to withhold the whistle until we see the outcome I don't think they would have said "an official SHALL sound his/her whistle IMMEDIATELY"
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 16, 2004, 12:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,217
I am willing to bet that you don't call everything to the letter of the rule. We can start with three seconds, and move on from there if you like. Most people's concept of thee seconds, based on antoher thread, is at least 4-5 seconds (not including situations where the player has the ball and attempting to score). The book doesn't tell you anywhere that 4-5 seconds is permissable.

I would argue that allowing 4-5 seconds in the lane as opposed to 3 has far more impact on the game than overlooking a technical violation of player alignment on a made FT.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 16, 2004, 12:38pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
My problem with the double violation

I don't like the penalty for a double violation, as it seems that the defense is not penalized at all. Especially if there are more free throws to follow, then there is no punishment for the defensive portion of the double violation.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 16, 2004, 01:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,217
Re: My problem with the double violation

Quote:
Originally posted by Snaqwells
I don't like the penalty for a double violation, as it seems that the defense is not penalized at all. Especially if there are more free throws to follow, then there is no punishment for the defensive portion of the double violation.
I have never liked it much either, but that is why I believe that the Fed has limited the number of times you will get these with the first to violate provision. Perhaps a fairer way you could treat a double violation is to invalidate the FT like an offsetting penalty in football. Make it as though it never happened.

But the "unequal" penalty of the double violation is all the more reason to hold your whistle and call it only if necessary.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1