The Official Forum - Both players going over line at FT

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Both players going over line at FT (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/22801-both-players-going-over-line-ft.html)

Quote:

Originally posted by jritchie
I was talking about if B enters lane and A throws up air ball.... .

So you were ... I read that original post several times and missed that. Mea Culpa.

The mere act of going in early

Quote:

Originally posted by jritchie

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by jritchie
if i have someone come into the lane from defense, and A1 throws up an airball, you could have a good arguement for disconcertion, you think!!!! i know the coach will probably be pushing for it....i give them the benefit of the doubt and give them another shot.. :)

If B enters the lane early, it's a violation -- A gets another shot (if the first one missed).

If you call it "disconcertion", it's a violation -- A gets another shot.

There's no difference.

If the "obvious" call was the lane violation, just call that one and don't worry about what might have been disconcertion.

I was talking about if B enters lane and A throws up air ball.... it was said that it should be a double violation!! in our state clinic, it was said to call disconcertion just to be safe, because we don't know for sure if B violating caused the second violation airball or not!! that is all i was saying...

The mere act of B1 going in early is not disconcertion. Airballs from the foul line, except at the lowest levels, are rare. If you get the delayed violation signal up, be careful not to look directly at the shooter, who might misunderstand and throw the ball back to you. The ultimate airball . . . and, unfortunately, you had a role in it . . .

Re: The mere act of going in early

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by jritchie

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by jritchie
if i have someone come into the lane from defense, and A1 throws up an airball, you could have a good arguement for disconcertion, you think!!!! i know the coach will probably be pushing for it....i give them the benefit of the doubt and give them another shot.. :)

If B enters the lane early, it's a violation -- A gets another shot (if the first one missed).

If you call it "disconcertion", it's a violation -- A gets another shot.

There's no difference.

If the "obvious" call was the lane violation, just call that one and don't worry about what might have been disconcertion.

I was talking about if B enters lane and A throws up air ball.... it was said that it should be a double violation!! in our state clinic, it was said to call disconcertion just to be safe, because we don't know for sure if B violating caused the second violation airball or not!! that is all i was saying...

The mere act of B1 going in early is not disconcertion. Airballs from the foul line, except at the lowest levels, are rare. If you get the delayed violation signal up, be careful not to look directly at the shooter, who might misunderstand and throw the ball back to you. The ultimate airball . . . and, unfortunately, you had a role in it . . .

Airballs aren't that rare. You're kidding about not looking directly at the shooter, right? The lead shouldn't be looking at the shooter anyway.

Re: Re: The mere act of going in early

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by jritchie

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by jritchie
if i have someone come into the lane from defense, and A1 throws up an airball, you could have a good arguement for disconcertion, you think!!!! i know the coach will probably be pushing for it....i give them the benefit of the doubt and give them another shot.. :)

If B enters the lane early, it's a violation -- A gets another shot (if the first one missed).

If you call it "disconcertion", it's a violation -- A gets another shot.

There's no difference.

If the "obvious" call was the lane violation, just call that one and don't worry about what might have been disconcertion.

I was talking about if B enters lane and A throws up air ball.... it was said that it should be a double violation!! in our state clinic, it was said to call disconcertion just to be safe, because we don't know for sure if B violating caused the second violation airball or not!! that is all i was saying...

The mere act of B1 going in early is not disconcertion. Airballs from the foul line, except at the lowest levels, are rare. If you get the delayed violation signal up, be careful not to look directly at the shooter, who might misunderstand and throw the ball back to you. The ultimate airball . . . and, unfortunately, you had a role in it . . .

Airballs aren't that rare. You're kidding about not looking directly at the shooter, right? The lead shouldn't be looking at the shooter anyway.

Let's say at the high school level, what percentage of foul shots do you think are airballs? You are absolutely correct, the lead shouldn't be looking at the shooter.

Re: Re: Re: The mere act of going in early

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Smitty

Quote:

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by jritchie

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by jritchie
if i have someone come into the lane from defense, and A1 throws up an airball, you could have a good arguement for disconcertion, you think!!!! i know the coach will probably be pushing for it....i give them the benefit of the doubt and give them another shot.. :)

If B enters the lane early, it's a violation -- A gets another shot (if the first one missed).

If you call it "disconcertion", it's a violation -- A gets another shot.

There's no difference.

If the "obvious" call was the lane violation, just call that one and don't worry about what might have been disconcertion.

I was talking about if B enters lane and A throws up air ball.... it was said that it should be a double violation!! in our state clinic, it was said to call disconcertion just to be safe, because we don't know for sure if B violating caused the second violation airball or not!! that is all i was saying...

The mere act of B1 going in early is not disconcertion. Airballs from the foul line, except at the lowest levels, are rare. If you get the delayed violation signal up, be careful not to look directly at the shooter, who might misunderstand and throw the ball back to you. The ultimate airball . . . and, unfortunately, you had a role in it . . .

Airballs aren't that rare. You're kidding about not looking directly at the shooter, right? The lead shouldn't be looking at the shooter anyway.

Let's say at the high school level, what percentage of foul shots do you think are airballs? You are absolutely correct, the lead shouldn't be looking at the shooter.

I haven't done a study - I don't have that much time on my hands. But certainly between girls and boys, freshman, JV, and varsity, there are some. The trail has to watch for it and be on top of it, if and when it does happen. Have you ever seen a shooter toss the ball back to the lead because the lead had his arm out for a delayed violation? The lead should not be in a position where the shooter can see his delayed violation signal to the point where the shooter would think the lead wants the ball. It should have no effect whatsoever on the shot attempt.