Both players going over line at FT

[crazy voyager]

I had this situation an a girls game I called last week. Apperently neither team knows that players behind the arc may only cross after the boll hits the ring, not all players anyway.
Sometimes only one player (the one who doesn't know the rule) runs erly and then I simply called the violation. But then suddenly,one player from each team run over the line, shot doesn't count so I couldn't cancle the game and tell them and then resume. What would you do?

[Kelvin green]

This is a free throw violation. so this is no different than anyother FT violsation where there is a double violation.

You need to jusdeg who crossed the arc first. If Offense crossed first ball is dead FT is over. If D crossed first then you would have a delay and then decide if D's actions created A to violate.

If they were independednt from each other I'd have a double violation and use the jump ball.. If not give it to the right team for a shot or OOB

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
You need to jusdeg who crossed the arc first. If Offense crossed first ball is dead FT is over. If D crossed first then you would have a delay and then decide if D's actions created A to violate.

Is this right? I thought this was for lane violations only. For instance, if B1 enters the lane early and then A1 throws an airball, it's a double violation, even tho they didn't happen at the same time.

I thought that the "penalize only the first one" was for lane violations only. No?

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by crazy voyager
... shot doesn't count so I couldn't cancle the game ...

Whether shot counts or not, you can't cancel the game .

As Kelvin said, it's a double violation, no team control, go to the arrow.

And Kelvin, I know what you mean when you say " If D crossed first then you would have a delay and then decide if D's actions created A to violate."

But I think it might be useful to clarify a couple of things. If D violates first (and this applies to all violations during a free throw), you give the "delayed violation" signal, which is a fist out to the side. If the shot falls, the violation isn't penalized, but if the shot misses, then you call the violation and give a substitute throw.

Disconcertion is just like any violation. So if the defender violates some other rule, you can just penalize that and ignore the disconcertion aspect. Disconcertion only comes into the picture if the defense is doing something that is not in itself illegal, but could be upseting the shooter's concentration.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Is this right? I thought this was for lane violations only. For instance, if B1 enters the lane early and then A1 throws an airball, it's a double violation, even tho they didn't happen at the same time.

I thought that the "penalize only the first one" was for lane violations only. No?

In the book, all the free-throw violations are listed together and the penalties are all listed together. No discrimination at all.

[crazy voyager]

misspellin gon my part rainmaker :P

alright, this clarified a lot, thanks for the help

and rainmaker, I'm sure all you've said is right :P but the sign you descibe or the rules don't (what I know) exist in FIBA :P so I can't tell if you're right or wrong.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by crazy voyager
misspellin gon my part rainmaker :P

I knew it was just an error of haste. But the picture of a ref trying to cancel a game just because a player stepped in too soon on a free throw, was just to good to pass up!!

..and rainmaker, I'm sure all you've said is right :P but the sign you descibe or the rules don't (what I know) exist in FIBA :P so I can't tell if you're right or wrong. [/B]

Oh, I'm right, alright, for NFHS. I don't know what the FIBA thing would be.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

In the book, all the free-throw violations are listed together and the penalties are all listed together. No discrimination at all.

Uh, Juulie, R9-1PENALTY4a&b kinda agree with Chuck.

[Mark Padgett]

BTW - in NF, it's not just hitting the rim that lets them come in before a basket, it's also hitting the backboard. This sometimes gets confused with the violation for hitting the board and not the rim on a missed FT. They're not the same rule.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Uh, Juulie, R9-1PENALTY4a&b kinda agree with Chuck.

Okay, I see. I was confusing with a single violation. Looking at the rule a little more carefully, I see what Chuck means. I suppose it could have been written more obtusely, but I'm not sure how.

So in cv's sitch, if defense (behind the line) violates first, you give the delayed-violation signal, and then if when offense violates, you whistle the play dead, in order to treat it as a simultaneous violation.

[Nevadaref]

Yep, Chuck's right. No doubt about it. Double violation.

With such a low to ground view, he ought to have the best look of any referee on the planet for these violations.

[ChrisSportsFan]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
BTW - in NF, it's not just hitting the rim that lets them come in before a basket, it's also hitting the backboard. This sometimes gets confused with the violation for hitting the board and not the rim on a missed FT. They're not the same rule.

You are correct. Oftentimes, I hear partners bounce the call to the thrower and say "wait for the rim". Usually the first couple of times per game I'll offer "wait for the hit", as it seems like more correct reminder.

[jritchie]

B][/QUOTE]Is this right? For instance, if B1 enters the lane early and then A1 throws an airball, it's a double violation, even tho they didn't happen at the same time.

I thought that the "penalize only the first one" was for lane violations only. No? [/B][/QUOTE]

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..

[bob jenkins]

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.

[jritchie]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

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...