unusual play
 

This should be quick Q and A:

First of two shot free throw. Two players from each team simultaneously violate. Watcha got.

From my learnings, if the same type of violation (B2 & A2 into lane too soon) make the decision who violated first drawing opponent with him.

If distinct violations, B1 in lane too soon and A1 crosses 3-pt line early: double violation go to 2nd free. Or how about, B1 in lane too soon and A1 shoots an airball: Double violation

No NFHS rulebook handy, but check Rule 9 Sect 2 Art 4 for NCAA.

If they are truly simultaneous, then you wipe the first FT and shoot the second as normal.

just to stir the pot -- double simultaneous violation on the first of 2 why would we waive it off -- no advantage gained.

Because that's the rule. If both violations are lane violations, and one comes first, then you only penalize the first. But if both occur at the same time (simultaneous), you wave off the basket and either (1) shoot the second FT or (2) go to the arrow if there are no more FTs to be shot.

Why would there be a double violation on the first of two? Where are the players going? :)

players could think one and one, ref could give false info, etc. You know kids are crazy.

Is it two from each team violating, for a total of four violations, and they're all simultaneous? I'll worry about that after Jesus comes back.

Yup, actually you could have simultaneous lane line violations on A1 and A2, and B1,B2, B3 and B4. What's the call for 4 violations versus two violations, all simultaneous?

What's the call if B3's simultaneous lane line violation above was also disconcertion?

Let Jesus worry about those too.;)

I know its the rule and its what I follow. I feel it penalizes the shooting team regardless. I try as best I can to determine if one player or the other violated first or drew the other player into a violation. It just seems a little more fair to have the penalty fit should the shooting team lose the shot attempt. JMO, its not always possible to do this, and thats why the rule is there.

I'm sorry. I misunderstood your question. I thought you were unclear on the rule. I agree that its application may seem unfair at times. If the offense violates, they lose the FT. If the offense and defense violate at the same time, they lose the FT, but there's no penalty to the defense. The only time the defense is penalized if they're the first to violate. So in two of the three possibilities, the offense is penalized and the defense is not.

Not sure how else to do it, tho. I also agree that the best thing to do is try as often as possible to determine who violated first, and avoid the double violation if possible.

Naw, can't agree. Of course, I'm a disagreeable cuss anyway.

Just call the game by the rules and forget about trying to make any kind of personal decision as to what's <b>fair</b> or not. Looking for an excuse to get away from calling a double-violation is wrong. That's not <b>fair</b> to the defensive team; they never wrote the rule. If it's that close to a double violation, just call the damn thing and quit trying to impose your own philosophy on the game.

You can't agree with concentrating on determining who violated first? :confused: I'm not saying to make one up, if you're not sure. I'm saying work on catching the first one, b/c there almost always is a first one.

You shouldn't be reading this anyway. It's almost time for your nap, isn't it? :p

Thanks JR for your input. We can always count on you to impose your philosophy on all of us. I agree that if its that close then call it like the rule says. I still feel if at all possible it is best to "try" to determine if someone violated first, especially if the shooting team is going to lose their shot attempt. This is my opinion, as you have said in the past, I am entitled to it. You may not agree with it, but I am allowed to express it.

SmokeEater, if it's not too much trouble, please go screw yourself. I wasn't trying to impose my philosophy on you or anybody else. I was giving <b>my</b> opinion, and <b>my</b> opinion only. If you don't like that, then that's just too freaking bad.