Two plays - free throw violations...

[NorthSide]

Play #1: A1 has two free-throws. A2 is on the lane line in the space nearest the baseline. B1 sets up next to him. Obviously, both are in the wrong spots. Is there a consequence to this situation? Is this a violation? Do the consequences differ from HS to NCAA?

Play #2: A1 is at the free-throw line for a bonus situation. All six players on the lane-line are in their designated spots. B1 steps in early (clearly a violation), but A1 shoots an air ball (also, a violation). What transpires next? Double violation? Go the arrow?

[JeffTheRef]

1. for not being where you're supposed to be and for being where you're not supposed to be . . .

2. the defensive violation is 'delayed' . . . if the free throw is made, the violation is ignored. Thus the shooter can still violate . . . and an airball does.

[BigJoe]

Northside,

The lead official should never administer the free throw until the bottom lane spaces are occupied by the defenders. This should be our responsibility so we don't have to call this violation. One of the many things that fall under "preventative officiating" that make our jobs less stressful.

On a related topic... I had to call a player for disconcertion for the second time this year for clapping loudly right behind the shooter. The defender was behind the arc at the top of the free throw circle. I also had a fake into the lane last night in a varsity boys game. I haven't seen that since it came out a couple of years ago that this was a violation.

Kid was clapping loudly behind the shooter? What an idiot. That's tooooo obvious. I'm just waiting for the day someone disconcerts via farting or burping! That would be a doozy!

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
2. the defensive violation is 'delayed' . . . if the free throw is made, the violation is ignored. Thus the shooter can still violate . . . and an airball does.

Not necessarily. Anytime the defense violates and then the shooter violates, you have to consider whether there was disconcertion.

[JeffTheRef]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Not necessarily. Anytime the defense violates and then the shooter violates, you have to consider whether there was disconcertion.

"Anytime the defense violates in the fashion described in the document above which is hereby incorporated by inference . . . ". Good point, Tony.