Casebook 6.4.3 Situation B & Casebook 9.1.6 Situation A

[Nevadaref]

I just found this for you too, Jeff. It is the same play as 6.4.3, but here the NFHS says that it is a double violation. I truly believe that they just made a terminology mistake in the casebook.

2002-03 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS

SITUATION 15: On a final free-throw attempt by A1, B1 commits a lane violation. A1's free throw misses the ring and flange. RULING: Double violation, unless the officials deem B1's act to be disconcerting to the shooter. If this was the last of multiple free throws, play will be resumed by the alternating-possession procedure. (9-1-3, 9-1-5, 9-1-9 Penalty 3)

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
I just found this for you too, Jeff. It is the same play as 6.4.3, but here the NFHS says that it is a double violation. I truly believe that they just made a terminology mistake in the casebook.

2002-03 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS

SITUATION 15: On a final free-throw attempt by A1, B1 commits a lane violation. A1's free throw misses the ring and flange. RULING: Double violation, unless the officials deem B1's act to be disconcerting to the shooter. If this was the last of multiple free throws, play will be resumed by the alternating-possession procedure. (9-1-3, 9-1-5, 9-1-9 Penalty 3)

Thanks. The terminology is messed up. Do you think that my proposed terminology covers all the possible instances?

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Do you think that my proposed terminology covers all the possible instances?

What if lane violations were codified as follows?

DOUBLE LANE VIOLATIONS: violations by opponents at approximately the same time, with the following special cases:

FALSE DOUBLE LANE VIOLATIONS: violations by opponents in the marked lane spaces at approximately the same time where the defense violates first.

DELAYED DOUBLE LANE VIOLATIONS: violation by the defense followed by a violation by the offense, where the violation by the offense is not part of a False Double Lane Violation.

Well you cover the case, but I think make it unnecessarily complicated. I fear that someone reading your definitions would be confused.
Therefore, I would prefer:
Double violation: a player from each team violates, but clearly not at the same time
Simultaneous violation: a player from each team violates at approximately the same time

That's nice and simple. Coaches can understand that.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Well you cover the case, but I think make it unnecessarily complicated. I fear that someone reading your definitions would be confused.
Therefore, I would prefer:
Double violation: a player from each team violates, but clearly not at the same time
Simultaneous violation: a player from each team violates at approximately the same time

That's nice and simple. Coaches can understand that.

What about the case where the defense in a marked lane spot draws the offense in? Would that be an exception to 'simultaneous violation' in your classification scheme?

My language echos the pattern established in naming fouls, and simplifies, which I think has some problems. 'Simultaneous' fouls are said to happen at 'approximately' the same time - a sliding standard.

Revising, to avoid the sliding standard, and to conform with the common sense of the term simultaneous:

SIMULTANEOUS FREE THROW VIOLATION: violations by opponents at the same time. [Penalty: the ball becomes dead and no point can be scored . . .]

FALSE SIMULTANEOUS FREE THROW VIOLATION: violations by opponents in the marked lane spaces where the defense violates first. [Penalty: If both offenders are in a marked lane space . . . ]

DELAYED SIMULTANEOUS FREE THROW VIOLATION: violation by the defense followed by a violation by the offense, where the violation by the offense is not part of a False Simultaneous Free Throw Violation. [Penalty: the ball becomes dead and no point can be scored . . .]

"The Map Is Not The Territory"

[Nevadaref]

Your false simul is my double.

Your delayed simul again fits my double, you just need to determine if both are penalized or only the first violation.

That's all. Don't make it too hard.

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Your false simul is my double.

Your delayed simul again fits my double, you just need to determine if both are penalized or only the first violation.

That's all. Don't make it too hard.

Your proposed system, only 2 categories - beautifully simple and way more rational than what exists - still needs to state what is stated in my 'False Simul'. I think you have to have 3 categories, or 2 plus a qualification.

There has been a lot of attention paid to the double-foul / false-double-foul distinction, so I thought that creating analogous nomenclature in violations would have some learnin' value.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am entering the fray late in the game, but I would like to volunteer my 35 years of rules experience.


If one reads any NBCofUS&C (the predecessor to the NFHS and NCAA rules committees), NFHS, and NCAA rules books or casebooks (including NCAA Approved Rulings) since at least the 1971-72 school and I am willing to bet that even before that, one will see that:

1) The word “double” is used only in situations that involve fouls, and refers to situations when two or more fouls are committed by the same team during a specified time period. The word “false” is only used with the term “double fouls.”

2) The word “simultaneous” is used in situations that involve either fouls or violations. It refers to situations where there are fouls or violations committed by both teams during a specified time period. The earliest use of the word “simultaneous” that I can find is in a NBCofUS&C casebook play ,in the early 1970’s,(and at this time of the evening, even though it is half-time of the Browns-Steelers game, I do not feel like climbing up in the attic to look up the exact year and casebook play number, but believe me it is there) where: A1 commits a common foul against B1 while B2 commits a common foul against A2. The casebook used the word “simultaneous” in describing this play as a false double foul.


Therefore, the word “double” was incorrectly used in the NFHS Casebook R9.S1.A1, Situation B and the NFHS 2002-03 Rules Interpretations Situation 15. Both of these plays are examples of “simultaneous” violations. What is important is that the correct ruling in all three plays is that play is resumed using the Alternation Possession Arrow. And that was the ruling in all three plays being discussed in this thread.


I hope that this post brings some finality to this thread.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I am entering the fray late in the game, but I would like to volunteer my 35 years of rules experience.


If one reads any NBCofUS&C (the predecessor to the NFHS and NCAA rules committees), NFHS, and NCAA rules books or casebooks (including NCAA Approved Rulings) since at least the 1971-72 school and I am willing to bet that even before that, one will see that:

1) The word “double” is used only in situations that involve fouls, and refers to situations when two or more fouls are committed by the same team during a specified time period. The word “false” is only used with the term “double fouls.”

2) The word “simultaneous” is used in situations that involve either fouls or violations. It refers to situations where there are fouls or violations committed by both teams during a specified time period. The earliest use of the word “simultaneous” that I can find is in a NBCofUS&C casebook play ,in the early 1970’s,(and at this time of the evening, even though it is half-time of the Browns-Steelers game, I do not feel like climbing up in the attic to look up the exact year and casebook play number, but believe me it is there) where: A1 commits a common foul against B1 while B2 commits a common foul against A2. The casebook used the word “simultaneous” in describing this play as a false double foul.


Therefore, the word “double” was incorrectly used in the NFHS Casebook R9.S1.A1, Situation B and the NFHS 2002-03 Rules Interpretations Situation 15. Both of these plays are examples of “simultaneous” violations. What is important is that the correct ruling in all three plays is that play is resumed using the Alternation Possession Arrow. And that was the ruling in all three plays being discussed in this thread.


I hope that this post brings some finality to this thread.

3 monkies, 11 minutes.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
3 monkies, 11 minutes. [/B]

And you point is?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

And you point is? [/B]

If you gave an infinite number of monkies an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time, eventually, one of them would type out one of Shakespeare's plays.

It only took 3 monkies a total of 11 minutes to pound out the post that JR quoted.

Am I close, JR?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

If you gave an infinite number of monkies an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time, eventually, one of them would type out one of Shakespeare's plays.

It only took 3 monkies a total of 11 minutes to pound out the post that JR quoted.

Am I close, JR? [/B]

See the last "JR" post in this thread also:

http://www.officialforum.com./showth...6+pagenumber=2

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

If you gave an infinite number of monkies an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time, eventually, one of them would type out one of Shakespeare's plays.

It only took 3 monkies a total of 11 minutes to pound out the post that JR quoted.

Am I close, JR? [/B]

Chuck:

JR may be correct about monkies and typewriters, but my original post in this thread is correct with regard to the words "double" and "simulatneous." And once again I hope that my original post will clear up the misuage of these two words.

And it took only one homosapien about five minutes of typting after about fifteen minutes of composing and about thirty minutes of research for my original post. Afterall, I thought that JR would have preferred to make a learned comment rather than a nonsense comment that had nothing to do with the plays being discussed.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Nov 14th, 2005 at 12:11 PM]

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I am entering the fray late in the game, but I would like to volunteer my 35 years of rules experience.


If one reads any NBCofUS&C (the predecessor to the NFHS and NCAA rules committees), NFHS, and NCAA rules books or casebooks (including NCAA Approved Rulings) since at least the 1971-72 school and I am willing to bet that even before that, one will see that:

1) The word “double” is used only in situations that involve fouls, and refers to situations when two or more fouls are committed by the same team during a specified time period. The word “false” is only used with the term “double fouls.”

2) The word “simultaneous” is used in situations that involve either fouls or violations. It refers to situations where there are fouls or violations committed by both teams during a specified time period. The earliest use of the word “simultaneous” that I can find is in a NBCofUS&C casebook play ,in the early 1970’s,(and at this time of the evening, even though it is half-time of the Browns-Steelers game, I do not feel like climbing up in the attic to look up the exact year and casebook play number, but believe me it is there) where: A1 commits a common foul against B1 while B2 commits a common foul against A2. The casebook used the word “simultaneous” in describing this play as a false double foul.


Therefore, the word “double” was incorrectly used in the NFHS Casebook R9.S1.A1, Situation B and the NFHS 2002-03 Rules Interpretations Situation 15. Both of these plays are examples of “simultaneous” violations. What is important is that the correct ruling in all three plays is that play is resumed using the Alternation Possession Arrow. And that was the ruling in all three plays being discussed in this thread.


I hope that this post brings some finality to this thread.

The only emporeris the emporer of ice cream.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

assignmentmaker:

My original post in this thread was a scholarly attempt to answer your original question and that being:

"What distinguishes a "simultaneous free-throw violation" from a "double violation"? That there is no team control in 6.4.3 Situation B but there is team control in 9.1.6 Situation A (I take "while releasing the ball" to mean 'hasn't released it yet')? Is this a distinction without a difference?"

That is how the words "double" and "simultaneous" are used in the rules and casebook plays/approved rulings. Everybody seemed to be getting hung up on these two words and were using them incorrectly.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Nov 14th, 2005 at 12:12 PM]

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
assignmentmaker:

My original post in this thread was a scholarly attempt to answer your original question and that being:

"What distinguishes a "simultaneous free-throw violation" from a "double violation"? That there is no team control in 6.4.3 Situation B but there is team control in 9.1.6 Situation A (I take "while releasing the ball" to mean 'hasn't released it yet')? Is this a distinction without a difference?"

That is how the words "false" and "simultaneous" are used in the rules and casebook plays/approved rulings. Everybody seemed to be getting hung up on these two words and were using them incorrectly.

MTD, Sr.

The current language is inconsistent. They just need to fix it. I merely proposed some language which parallels other language already effectively in use - just an efficient way to think about it. Not necessarily the only way. I'm all ears to other ways.