Tonight, I call a 1-1 foul from Lead. I go out to report, my partner is in place and I turn around to see the FT. He already has things ready to go and he bounces the ball to the shooter. I look into the lane as the ball is going up, and see a member of the shooting team in the lowest spot.

I know that it was my parnter's responsibility to get the bottom two spots in the lane filled with opponenets of the shooter, but when he fails to do that, what is the procedure? Is it still a violation? I know it's not correctable...I called a lane violation. Eeek!

Double violation.

AP arrow.

Well, add that to the list of rules that need to be changed...how can the rules penalize B for being where they are supposed to be...A2 KNOWS she can't be on the block when her teammate is the shooter.

The reason its a double violation is thar as you say A2 KNOWS she can't be in the block if her teammate is the shooter and B is supposed to KNOW they are required to fill the block.

So I guess you didn't call a double violation? :o

See original post...last sentence!

This will be a topic of discussion at our next meeting!!!

If your partner had properly waited for you to get into your position (opposite table), you would have had a look at the lanes (even though it's HIS responsibility) and probably noticed the wrong player before the administration. Sloppiness lead to the double lane violation. Even if everyone was lined up properly, he did not give you a chance to be in proper position had the foul shot missed and become live (and you never got to count your 10 seconds!). I'd say it's time for a little chat, first question is: "Do you have a date, or something?" Slow down, what's the big rush?

Oooooo! Touchy, aren't we? :D

It's just discussion, partner.

Note the ;) and the :o that says how fun-lovin' I am. :)

If it's a double violation do you go to the possession arrow to continue the game?

Bktballref answered that: "Double violation. AP arrow."

Didn't mean it as a punt in your direction...:D Sorry it came across that way BBR...thanks for the ruling...even though tis stinky!!! Seems like a copout for the rules committee to say that NOBOBY has the responsibility to be there, but that they are REQUIRED to be there. Seems like an area that we are babysitting instead of officiating. If the non-shooting team is dumb enough to not fill the space, maybe the D should be allowed in that spot!!!

the key word here is "she" If you are not on your toes when doing a girls game you will get burnt. After doing many girls games, I now realize why the girls season begins before the boys. They use the girls to get us warmed up and more knowledgeable of the rules.

Sorry Rainmaker do not take this personally.

Can you say "shirt tails?" Talk about babysitting! :(

It should be like football, where the coach gets a flag if we find a player who isn't properly equipped.

No harm, no violation
 

Made shot, since partner had a part in this error, you can choose to see it after the shot was made and then there is no double violation, the thought being that the error did not impact the play in any way, so why call it.

If the shot is missed, you have to call a double violation since it does impact the play, so the whistle goes as the ball comes off the rim if you want to follow this logic.

Re: No harm, no violation
 

This is the correct answer.

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.

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

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?

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"

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.

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.

Re: My problem with 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.