Double Lane Violation??

[mkg1025]

A player is shooting a free throw, the opposing teams player walks up to the shooter, and in no way obstructs or interferes with the shooter, just stands in the middle of the lane. The shooter fails to shoot after 10 seconds, is this a double lane violation?

[Nevadaref]

Yes, but MTD would tell you that it should properly be called a simultaneous violation. The NFHS case book does use the term double violation. BTW take the word "lane" out too to be picky about it.

[mkg1025]

So you wuold say double violation, and go to the arrow? Nothing illegal about the player in the lane, not unsportmanlike or anyhting like that?

[Nevadaref]

Correct. When a double violation occurs on a free throw, the ball becomes dead, no point can be scored, and the game is resumed by either administering any remaining FTs or going to the AP arrow.
Here is the clip from the rules book in which I've highlighted what applies to your question in red.

(These are penalty articles 3 & 4 for Rule 9, Section 1.)

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 the free thrower or a teammate of the free thrower to violate, only the fake is penalized.

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by mkg1025

A player is shooting a free throw, the opposing teams player walks up to the shooter, and in no way obstructs or interferes with the shooter, just stands in the middle of the lane. The shooter fails to shoot after 10 seconds, is this a double lane violation?

Let me get this right, the defender is standing in the middle of the lane and walks up to the shooter...there is no way that I am having a double violation in this situation. Disconcertion maybe (?) I think you could sell that call here. If the shooter has the ball and the defender does what you say I may be tempted to stop the play and give the shooter a substitute throw. Rule 2.3!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RonRef

Let me get this right, the defender is standing in the middle of the lane and walks up to the shooter...there is no way that I am having a double violation in this situation. Disconcertion maybe (?) I think you could sell that call here. If the shooter has the ball and the defender does what you say I may be tempted to stop the play and give the shooter a substitute throw. Rule 2.3!

In a whole bunch of years, I have never seen R2-3 used. That's because you can usually find an appropriate rule somewhere in the book instead. There are appropriate rules in the book to cover this situation, and Nevada has already cited them. Iow, you can't use R2-3 to over-rule another existing rule just because you personally don't agree with that rule.

You certainly could call "disconcertion" though if the defender's actions bother you that much. If the defender walks towards the FT shooter, it certainly sounds like disconcertion to me too. You still don't have rules backing though to "stop the play" until the FT shooter has been given a chance to legally try his FT....which is 10 seconds by rule(not custom)....if the defender doesn't actually interfere with the FT. Disconcertion is a judgement call, and therefore is defensible. Using R2-3 isn't defensible in this case.

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

In a whole bunch of years, I have never seen R2-3 used. That's because you can usually find an appropriate rule somewhere in the book instead. There are appropriate rules in the book to cover this situation, and Nevada has already cited them. Iow, you can't use R2-3 to over-rule another existing rule just because you personally don't agree with that rule.

You certainly could call "disconcertion" though if the defender's actions bother you that much. If the defender walks towards the FT shooter, it certainly sounds like disconcertion to me too. You still don't have rules backing though to "stop the play" until the FT shooter has been given a chance to legally try his FT....which is 10 seconds by rule(not custom)....if the defender doesn't actually interfere with the FT. Disconcertion is a judgement call, and therefore is defensible. Using R2-3 isn't defensible in this case.

JR,

The rule 2.3 reference was a side joke, I was not condoning over using it or not using other rules that cover a given situation. Do you have a sense of humor...let me know!

[Official99]

Originally Posted by RonRef

JR,

The rule 2.3 reference was a side joke, I was not condoning over using it or not using other rules that cover a given situation. Do you have a sense of humor...let me know!

No he doesn't have a sense of humor, and don't ever mention anything about "talking to the players"....

[RonRef]

Originally Posted by Official99

No he doesn't have a sense of humor, and don't ever mention anything about "talking to the players"....

Thanks for the update Official99, I will take this into consideration in the future. I am an new school official that believes talking to the player can really help our game go smoother.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Official99

No he doesn't have a sense of humor, and don't ever mention anything about "talking to the players"....

Hey, don't feel left out. I laughed at most of your posts too, especially the one where you wanted to "T" up a coach because a fan interfered in a game.

Feel better now?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RonRef

JR,

The rule 2.3 reference was a side joke, I was not condoning over using it or not using other rules that cover a given situation. Do you have a sense of humor...let me know!

Yup, I sure do have a sense of humor. I laughed when I read your post above.

"Not condoning using 2-3".....yeah, right. That's funny.

[Dan_ref]

OK, OK, OK everybody just calm down. Time to inject a little reality here...

Yes, by rule this third world play is a double violation. But there is no way I am going to keep silently counting to 10 while B1 is standing in the middle of the lane staring at the shooter, A1 is staring at the ball not knowing what comes next and both coaches are staring at me wondering why I'm letting this continue. To begin with at some point in those 10 seconds A1 & B1 will exchange unpleasantries. Blow the whistle, make sure B1 isn't having some sort of seizure or religious experience & start again.

OK, you can continue throwing your rule books at each other now.