The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Casebook 6.4.3 Situation B & Casebook 9.1.6 Situation A (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/23110-casebook-6-4-3-situation-b-casebook-9-1-6-situation.html)

assignmentmaker Wed Nov 09, 2005 06:47pm
Under Fed rules, in Casebook 6.4.3 Situation B we read:

"B1, in a marked lane space, enters the lane prematurely. The administering official properly signals the violation and A1 attempts the free throw. However, A1's attempt does not enter the basket or touch the ring. RULING: The violations by B1 and A1 constitute a simultaneous free-throw violation. Unless another free throw follows, play resumes with an alternating possession throw-in from a designated spot outside the end line."

Then, in Casebook 9.1.6 Situation A we read:

"While A1 is attempting a final free throw, . . . (b)B1, in a marked lane space enters the lane too soon, then shooter A1 steps on the free-throw line while releasing the throw. RULING: . . . In (b), a double violation is called and the ball is put in play using the alternating-possession procedure."

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?

If, for example, 9.1.6 Situation A were stipulated to take place during the first of two free-throws, would the ruling then be, following 6.4.3 Situation B, " . . . play resumes with an alternating possession throw-in from a designated spot outside the end line."

rainmaker Wed Nov 09, 2005 06:54pm
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Under Fed rules, in Casebook 6.4.3 Situation B we read:

"B1, in a marked lane space, enters the lane prematurely. The administering official properly signals the violation and A1 attempts the free throw. However, A1's attempt does not enter the basket or touch the ring. RULING: The violations by B1 and A1 constitute a simultaneous free-throw violation. Unless another free throw follows, play resumes with an alternating possession throw-in from a designated spot outside the end line."

Then, in Casebook 9.1.6 Situation A we read:

"While A1 is attempting a final free throw, . . . (b)B1, in a marked lane space enters the lane too soon, then shooter A1 steps on the free-throw line while releasing the throw. RULING: . . . In (b), a double violation is called and the ball is put in play using the alternating-possession procedure."

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?

If, for example, 9.1.6 Situation A were stipulated to take place during the first of two free-throws, would the ruling then be, following 6.4.3 Situation B, " . . . play resumes with an alternating possession throw-in from a designated spot outside the end line."
Jeff, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

blindzebra Wed Nov 09, 2005 08:09pm
Why should we care?

Does it make the ruling more difficult to understand?

Nevadaref Thu Nov 10, 2005 04:26am
simul or double?
 
Jeff,
While it is not defined in the book, I've always understood a simultaneous violation to be two players committing violations at approximately the same time, and a double violation was two opponents violating one after the other.
In the first case, you really couldn't say which happened first, but in the second we are sure that one preceded the other.

Personally, I don't agree with the term used in 6.4.3, I believe that should be called a double violation. Both are penalized though, since both were not by players in marked lane spaces.
9.1.6 has it correct, imo.


As for your question, "If, for example, 9.1.6 Situation A were stipulated to take place during the first of two free-throws, would the ruling then be, following 6.4.3 Situation B, " . . . play resumes with an alternating possession throw-in from a designated spot outside the end line." "

The answer is no. You simply cancel the first FT due to the double violation and then administer the second FT as normal.

The Penalty section of 9-1 instructs us to do it this way as 4b refers back to 3.

"3. If there is a simultaneous violation by each team, the ball becomes dead and no point can be scored. Remaining free throws are administered or play is resumed by the team entitled to the alternating-possession throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the simultaneous violation occurred.
4. If there is a violation first by the free-thrower's opponent followed by the free thrower or a teammate:

a. If both offenders are in a marked lane-space, the second violation is ignored, as in penalty item (2).
b. If the second violation is by the free thrower or a teammate behind the free-throw line extended and the three-point line, both violations are penalized, as in penalty item (3).
c. If a violation by the free thrower follows disconcertion by an opponent, a substitute free throw shall be awarded.
d. If a fake by an opponent causes a teammate of the free thrower to violate, only the fake is penalized."

Jimgolf Thu Nov 10, 2005 04:58am
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
What distinguishes a "simultaneous free-throw violation" from a "double violation"?
Is there a distinction? Could they be synonyms?

assignmentmaker Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:51am
Re: simul or double?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Jeff,
While it is not defined in the book, I've always understood a simultaneous violation to be two players committing violations at approximately the same time, and a double violation was two opponents violating one after the other.
In the first case, you really couldn't say which happened first, but in the second we are sure that one preceded the other.

Personally, I don't agree with the term used in 6.4.3, I believe that should be called a double violation. Both are penalized though, since both were not by players in marked lane spaces.
9.1.6 has it correct, imo.


As for your question, "If, for example, 9.1.6 Situation A were stipulated to take place during the first of two free-throws, would the ruling then be, following 6.4.3 Situation B, " . . . play resumes with an alternating possession throw-in from a designated spot outside the end line." "

The answer is no. You simply cancel the first FT due to the double violation and then administer the second FT as normal.

The Penalty section of 9-1 instructs us to do it this way as 4b refers back to 3.

"3. If there is a simultaneous violation by each team, the ball becomes dead and no point can be scored. Remaining free throws are administered or play is resumed by the team entitled to the alternating-possession throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the simultaneous violation occurred.
4. If there is a violation first by the free-thrower's opponent followed by the free thrower or a teammate:

a. If both offenders are in a marked lane-space, the second violation is ignored, as in penalty item (2).
b. If the second violation is by the free thrower or a teammate behind the free-throw line extended and the three-point line, both violations are penalized, as in penalty item (3).
c. If a violation by the free thrower follows disconcertion by an opponent, a substitute free throw shall be awarded.
d. If a fake by an opponent causes a teammate of the free thrower to violate, only the fake is penalized."
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

1. You say: "Personally, I don't agree with the term used in 6.4.3, I believe that should be called a double violation." For sure, 'simultaneous' is not a very good literal description of events so obviously distinct in time.

2. I agree with your answer about the penalty to be applied.

3. In the context of fouls, 'double' means 'at approximately the same time', whereas, in the context of lane violations, that's what 'simultaneous' means . . .

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.

This would obviate the counter-intuitive use of the term simultaneous . . . and, I believe, echo the pattern of usage in the more strictly defined context of fouls.

Jurassic Referee Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:54am
Re: Re: simul or double?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Jeff,
While it is not defined in the book, I've always understood a simultaneous violation to be two players committing violations at approximately the same time, and a double violation was two opponents violating one after the other.
In the first case, you really couldn't say which happened first, but in the second we are sure that one preceded the other.

Personally, I don't agree with the term used in 6.4.3, I believe that should be called a double violation. Both are penalized though, since both were not by players in marked lane spaces.
9.1.6 has it correct, imo.


As for your question, "If, for example, 9.1.6 Situation A were stipulated to take place during the first of two free-throws, would the ruling then be, following 6.4.3 Situation B, " . . . play resumes with an alternating possession throw-in from a designated spot outside the end line." "

The answer is no. You simply cancel the first FT due to the double violation and then administer the second FT as normal.

The Penalty section of 9-1 instructs us to do it this way as 4b refers back to 3.

"3. If there is a simultaneous violation by each team, the ball becomes dead and no point can be scored. Remaining free throws are administered or play is resumed by the team entitled to the alternating-possession throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the simultaneous violation occurred.
4. If there is a violation first by the free-thrower's opponent followed by the free thrower or a teammate:

a. If both offenders are in a marked lane-space, the second violation is ignored, as in penalty item (2).
b. If the second violation is by the free thrower or a teammate behind the free-throw line extended and the three-point line, both violations are penalized, as in penalty item (3).
c. If a violation by the free thrower follows disconcertion by an opponent, a substitute free throw shall be awarded.
d. If a fake by an opponent causes a teammate of the free thrower to violate, only the fake is penalized."
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

1. You say: "Personally, I don't agree with the term used in 6.4.3, I believe that should be called a double violation." For sure, 'simultaneous' is not a very good literal description of events so obviously distinct in time.

2. I agree with your answer about the penalty to be applied.

3. In the context of fouls, 'double' means 'at approximately the same time', whereas, in the context of lane violations, that's what 'simultaneous' means . . .

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.

This would obviate the counter-intuitive use of the term simultaneous . . . and, I believe, echo the pattern of usage in the more strictly defined context of fouls.
http://www.gifs.net/animate/icecave.gif

Dan_ref Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:13am
Re: Re: Re: simul or double?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Jeff,
While it is not defined in the book, I've always understood a simultaneous violation to be two players committing violations at approximately the same time, and a double violation was two opponents violating one after the other.
In the first case, you really couldn't say which happened first, but in the second we are sure that one preceded the other.

Personally, I don't agree with the term used in 6.4.3, I believe that should be called a double violation. Both are penalized though, since both were not by players in marked lane spaces.
9.1.6 has it correct, imo.


As for your question, "If, for example, 9.1.6 Situation A were stipulated to take place during the first of two free-throws, would the ruling then be, following 6.4.3 Situation B, " . . . play resumes with an alternating possession throw-in from a designated spot outside the end line." "

The answer is no. You simply cancel the first FT due to the double violation and then administer the second FT as normal.

The Penalty section of 9-1 instructs us to do it this way as 4b refers back to 3.

"3. If there is a simultaneous violation by each team, the ball becomes dead and no point can be scored. Remaining free throws are administered or play is resumed by the team entitled to the alternating-possession throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the simultaneous violation occurred.
4. If there is a violation first by the free-thrower's opponent followed by the free thrower or a teammate:

a. If both offenders are in a marked lane-space, the second violation is ignored, as in penalty item (2).
b. If the second violation is by the free thrower or a teammate behind the free-throw line extended and the three-point line, both violations are penalized, as in penalty item (3).
c. If a violation by the free thrower follows disconcertion by an opponent, a substitute free throw shall be awarded.
d. If a fake by an opponent causes a teammate of the free thrower to violate, only the fake is penalized."
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

1. You say: "Personally, I don't agree with the term used in 6.4.3, I believe that should be called a double violation." For sure, 'simultaneous' is not a very good literal description of events so obviously distinct in time.

2. I agree with your answer about the penalty to be applied.

3. In the context of fouls, 'double' means 'at approximately the same time', whereas, in the context of lane violations, that's what 'simultaneous' means . . .

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.

This would obviate the counter-intuitive use of the term simultaneous . . . and, I believe, echo the pattern of usage in the more strictly defined context of fouls.
http://www.gifs.net/animate/icecave.gif
http://www.pusscats.com/Cats_Funny_P...What_Is_It.jpg

Jurassic Referee Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:33am
Re: Re: Re: Re: simul or double?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Jeff,
While it is not defined in the book, I've always understood a simultaneous violation to be two players committing violations at approximately the same time, and a double violation was two opponents violating one after the other.
In the first case, you really couldn't say which happened first, but in the second we are sure that one preceded the other.

Personally, I don't agree with the term used in 6.4.3, I believe that should be called a double violation. Both are penalized though, since both were not by players in marked lane spaces.
9.1.6 has it correct, imo.


As for your question, "If, for example, 9.1.6 Situation A were stipulated to take place during the first of two free-throws, would the ruling then be, following 6.4.3 Situation B, " . . . play resumes with an alternating possession throw-in from a designated spot outside the end line." "

The answer is no. You simply cancel the first FT due to the double violation and then administer the second FT as normal.

The Penalty section of 9-1 instructs us to do it this way as 4b refers back to 3.

"3. If there is a simultaneous violation by each team, the ball becomes dead and no point can be scored. Remaining free throws are administered or play is resumed by the team entitled to the alternating-possession throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the simultaneous violation occurred.
4. If there is a violation first by the free-thrower's opponent followed by the free thrower or a teammate:

a. If both offenders are in a marked lane-space, the second violation is ignored, as in penalty item (2).
b. If the second violation is by the free thrower or a teammate behind the free-throw line extended and the three-point line, both violations are penalized, as in penalty item (3).
c. If a violation by the free thrower follows disconcertion by an opponent, a substitute free throw shall be awarded.
d. If a fake by an opponent causes a teammate of the free thrower to violate, only the fake is penalized."
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

1. You say: "Personally, I don't agree with the term used in 6.4.3, I believe that should be called a double violation." For sure, 'simultaneous' is not a very good literal description of events so obviously distinct in time.

2. I agree with your answer about the penalty to be applied.

3. In the context of fouls, 'double' means 'at approximately the same time', whereas, in the context of lane violations, that's what 'simultaneous' means . . .

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.

This would obviate the counter-intuitive use of the term simultaneous . . . and, I believe, echo the pattern of usage in the more strictly defined context of fouls.
http://www.gifs.net/animate/icecave.gif
http://www.pusscats.com/Cats_Funny_P...What_Is_It.jpg
http://www.gifs.net/animate/bulldog56.gif

Jurassic Referee Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:41am
Re: simul or double?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Jeff,
While it is not defined in the book, I've always understood a simultaneous violation to be two players committing violations at approximately the same time, and <font color = red>a double violation was two opponents violating one after the other</font>.
Nope, that's a gangbang, by definition. It's somewhere in rule 4.

Dan_ref Thu Nov 10, 2005 02:04pm
Re: Re: simul or double?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Jeff,
While it is not defined in the book, I've always understood a simultaneous violation to be two players committing violations at approximately the same time, and <font color = red>a double violation was two opponents violating one after the other</font>.
Nope, that's a gangbang, by definition. It's somewhere in rule 4.
Wait.

Isn't a gangbang an example of multiple players violating a single opponent?

Jurassic Referee Thu Nov 10, 2005 02:57pm
Re: Re: Re: simul or double?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Jeff,
While it is not defined in the book, I've always understood a simultaneous violation to be two players committing violations at approximately the same time, and <font color = red>a double violation was two opponents violating one after the other</font>.
Nope, that's a gangbang, by definition. It's somewhere in rule 4.
Wait.

Isn't a gangbang an example of multiple players violating a single opponent?
No, if there's a time frame between the acts, then that's a false multiple gangbang. That was on the iAABO exam last year.

Dan_ref Thu Nov 10, 2005 03:53pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: simul or double?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Jeff,
While it is not defined in the book, I've always understood a simultaneous violation to be two players committing violations at approximately the same time, and <font color = red>a double violation was two opponents violating one after the other</font>.
Nope, that's a gangbang, by definition. It's somewhere in rule 4.
Wait.

Isn't a gangbang an example of multiple players violating a single opponent?
No, if there's a time frame between the acts, then that's a false multiple gangbang. That was on the iAABO exam last year.
Sigh. This stuff is so confusing.

Jurassic Referee Thu Nov 10, 2005 03:57pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: simul or double?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Jeff,
While it is not defined in the book, I've always understood a simultaneous violation to be two players committing violations at approximately the same time, and <font color = red>a double violation was two opponents violating one after the other</font>.
Nope, that's a gangbang, by definition. It's somewhere in rule 4.
Wait.

Isn't a gangbang an example of multiple players violating a single opponent?
No, if there's a time frame between the acts, then that's a false multiple gangbang. That was on the iAABO exam last year.
Sigh. This stuff is so confusing.
Want me to e-mail you the exam answers? That was #34.

Dan_ref Thu Nov 10, 2005 04:30pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: simul or double?
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Jeff,
While it is not defined in the book, I've always understood a simultaneous violation to be two players committing violations at approximately the same time, and <font color = red>a double violation was two opponents violating one after the other</font>.
Nope, that's a gangbang, by definition. It's somewhere in rule 4.
Wait.

Isn't a gangbang an example of multiple players violating a single opponent?
No, if there's a time frame between the acts, then that's a false multiple gangbang. That was on the iAABO exam last year.
Sigh. This stuff is so confusing.
Want me to e-mail you the exam answers? That was #34.
That would be great, thanks for not making me have to ask.

Nevadaref Fri Nov 11, 2005 04:53am
further evidence
 
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 Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:24am
Re: further evidence
 
Quote:
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 Sat Nov 12, 2005 05:11am
Quote:
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. :D

assignmentmaker Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:11am
You hafta
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Quote:
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. :D
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 Sun Nov 13, 2005 08:16am
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 Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:24am
Quote:
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. Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:17pm
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 Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:51pm
Quote:
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. Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:05pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
3 monkies, 11 minutes. [/B]


And you point is?

ChuckElias Mon Nov 14, 2005 08:21am
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
3 monkies, 11 minutes.
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. :D

Am I close, JR?

Jurassic Referee Mon Nov 14, 2005 08:41am
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
3 monkies, 11 minutes.
And you point is?
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. :D

Am I close, JR? [/B]
See the last "JR" post in this thread also:

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

:D

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:23am
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
3 monkies, 11 minutes.
And you point is?
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. :D

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 Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:28am
Let be be final of seem
 
Quote:
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. Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:35am
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 Mon Nov 14, 2005 11:40am
I'm with you, I think
 
Quote:
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.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:26pm
Re: I'm with you, I think
 
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
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.

assignmentmaker:

First, I edited my post that you quoted above, and changed the word "false" to "double." I do not know why I was refering to the word "false." But that is just poor editing on my part.

Second, the language in the rules books and casebook plays/approved rulings is clear. Repeating what I said in my first post: "Double" refers to infractions of the rules by the same team within a specified time period. The infractions must be either fouls or violations but not a mixture of both. And, "simultaneous" refers to infractions by both teams within a specified time period. The infractions must be either fouls or violations but not a mixture of both.

It is obvious that when NFHS Casebook R6.S4.A3, Situation B and NFHS 2002-03 Rules Interpretation Situation 15 were written, the word "double" was incorrectly used instead of "simultaneous." Even though the editing of these two plays was poor, the rulings are correct.

No changes need to be made in the rules, just more accurate use of the language needs to be used by all officials including the people at the NFHS when it comes to writing casebook plays.

MTD, Sr.

assignmentmaker Mon Nov 14, 2005 01:00pm
Re: Re: I'm with you, I think
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:
Originally posted by assignmentmaker
Quote:
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.

assignmentmaker:

First, I edited my post that you quoted above, and changed the word "false" to "double." I do not know why I was refering to the word "false." But that is just poor editing on my part.

Second, the language in the rules books and casebook plays/approved rulings is clear. Repeating what I said in my first post: "Double" refers to infractions of the rules by the same team within a specified time period. The infractions must be either fouls or violations but not a mixture of both. And, "simultaneous" refers to infractions by both teams within a specified time period. The infractions must be either fouls or violations but not a mixture of both.

It is obvious that when NFHS Casebook R6.S4.A3, Situation B and NFHS 2002-03 Rules Interpretation Situation 15 were written, the word "double" was incorrectly used instead of "simultaneous." Even though the editing of these two plays was poor, the rulings are correct.

No changes need to be made in the rules, just more accurate use of the language needs to be used by all officials including the people at the NFHS when it comes to writing casebook plays.

MTD, Sr.
You say: ""Double" refers to infractions of the rules by the same team within a specified time period."

As I read it, in the current fouls language, 'double' refers to fouls charged to one pair of opponents, which fouls occur at approximately the same time. 'Simultaneous' references fouls involving two pairs of opponents, which fouls occur at approximately the same time. (While I don't think this is addressed, a 'simultaneous' foul could be comprised of two double fouls, in which case you would asses a total of 4 fouls . . .)

As I read it, the violations language does not, in fact, parallel the fouls language.

In all cases, the map is not the territory. The labels are inconsistent. Despite that, violations of the constraints on behavior intended by the rules are generally recognized by officials, and the penalties generally applied properly, a triumph of distributed intelligence.

Jurassic Referee Mon Nov 14, 2005 01:23pm
Re: Re: I'm with you, I think
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[/B]
Second, the language in the rules books and casebook plays/approved rulings is clear. Repeating what I said in my first post: <font color = red>"Double" refers to infractions of the rules by the <b>same</b> team within a specified time period. The infractions must be either <b>fouls</b> or violations but not a mixture of both. And, "simultaneous" refers to infractions by both teams within a specified time period. The infractions must be either <b>fouls</b> or violations but not a mixture of both.</font>

[/B][/QUOTE]Hmmmm, my guess is "one monkey, 47 seconds" on the above. :D

How come the rulebook definition for a "double" foul is 2 <b>opponents</b> committing fouls against <b>each other</b> at approximately the <b>same</b> time? Have you ever heard of a "double" foul, Mark, where 2 players on the <b>same</b> team committed fouls at the same time? Do you know what a <b>"multiple"</b> foul is? And the rulebook definition of a "simultaneous" foul is 2 opponents committing fouls at approximately the <b>same</b> time but <b>not</b> against each other.

Riddle me all of that, Cheetah!

Lah me.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Mon Nov 14, 2005 06:08pm
Re: Re: Re: I'm with you, I think
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Second, the language in the rules books and casebook plays/approved rulings is clear. Repeating what I said in my first post: <font color = red>"Double" refers to infractions of the rules by the <b>same</b> team within a specified time period. The infractions must be either <b>fouls</b> or violations but not a mixture of both. And, "simultaneous" refers to infractions by both teams within a specified time period. The infractions must be either <b>fouls</b> or violations but not a mixture of both.</font>

[/B]
Hmmmm, my guess is "one monkey, 47 seconds" on the above. :D

How come the rulebook definition for a "double" foul is 2 <b>opponents</b> committing fouls against <b>each other</b> at approximately the <b>same</b> time? Have you ever heard of a "double" foul, Mark, where 2 players on the <b>same</b> team committed fouls at the same time? Do you know what a <b>"multiple"</b> foul is? And the rulebook definition of a "simultaneous" foul is 2 opponents committing fouls at approximately the <b>same</b> time but <b>not</b> against each other.

Riddle me all of that, Cheetah!

Lah me.
[/B][/QUOTE]



JR:

You are absolutely correct. I just got home from dropping our two sons off at their swim team practice and while driving home, I was thinking about my original post and realized that I had posted a piece of garbage, and that I needed to get back online to wipe the slate clean and post something that is correct and not garbage. I will be doing that in the next 24 hours.

And JR, if you continue to refer to me as Cheetah or any other member of this forum in the same manner you may find your posts being deleted. That kind of crap has not will not be tolerated. If you want to make a scholarly response to what someone has posted or a humorus response that is acceptable, but demeaining responses are not acceptable.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Nov 14th, 2005 at 06:11 PM]

Dan_ref Mon Nov 14, 2005 06:46pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm with you, I think
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Second, the language in the rules books and casebook plays/approved rulings is clear. Repeating what I said in my first post: <font color = red>"Double" refers to infractions of the rules by the <b>same</b> team within a specified time period. The infractions must be either <b>fouls</b> or violations but not a mixture of both. And, "simultaneous" refers to infractions by both teams within a specified time period. The infractions must be either <b>fouls</b> or violations but not a mixture of both.</font>
Hmmmm, my guess is "one monkey, 47 seconds" on the above. :D

How come the rulebook definition for a "double" foul is 2 <b>opponents</b> committing fouls against <b>each other</b> at approximately the <b>same</b> time? Have you ever heard of a "double" foul, Mark, where 2 players on the <b>same</b> team committed fouls at the same time? Do you know what a <b>"multiple"</b> foul is? And the rulebook definition of a "simultaneous" foul is 2 opponents committing fouls at approximately the <b>same</b> time but <b>not</b> against each other.

Riddle me all of that, Cheetah!

Lah me.
[/B]


JR:

You are absolutely correct. I just got home from dropping our two sons off at their swim team practice and while driving home, I was thinking about my original post and realized that I had posted a piece of garbage, and that I needed to get back online to wipe the slate clean and post something that is correct and not garbage. I will be doing that in the next 24 hours.

And JR, if you continue to refer to me as Cheetah or any other member of this forum in the same manner you may find your posts being deleted. That kind of crap has not will not be tolerated. If you want to make a scholarly response to what someone has posted or a humorus response that is acceptable, but demeaining responses are not acceptable.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Nov 14th, 2005 at 06:11 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

Last night on the movie channel they showed "The Wizard of Oz". A great movie, the more times I see it the more lessons in life I find. Here's one of my favorite quotes:

"Do not arouse the wrath of the great and powerful Oz!"

http://www.homevideos.com/freezefram...rdofoz105.jpeg

Jurassic Referee Mon Nov 14, 2005 06:47pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Hmmmm, my guess is "one monkey, 47 seconds" on the above. :D

[/B]
And JR, if you continue to refer to me as Cheetah or any other member of this forum in the same manner you may find your posts being deleted. That kind of crap has not will not be tolerated.
[/B][/QUOTE]Obviously, the concept of <b>"smileys"</b> seems to have eluded you.

Let me see if I can help you out, Mark:
http://www.gifs.net/animate/setupz.gif

Or alternatively, put in a written complaint to someone who cares:
http://www.gifs.net/animate/nsmail4k.gif


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:43am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1