Casebook 6.4.3 Situation B & Casebook 9.1.6 Situation A

[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."

[rainmaker]

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]

Why should we care?

Does it make the ruling more difficult to understand?

[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."

[Jimgolf]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
What distinguishes a "simultaneous free-throw violation" from a "double violation"?

Is there a distinction? Could they be synonyms?

[assignmentmaker]

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]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

Nope, that's a gangbang, by definition. It's somewhere in rule 4.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

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]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Sigh. This stuff is so confusing.

Want me to e-mail you the exam answers? That was #34.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Want me to e-mail you the exam answers? That was #34.

That would be great, thanks for not making me have to ask.