Double Lane Violation??
 

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?

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.

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?

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.

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 <b>towards</b> 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!

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

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.

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.

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

Feel better now? :)

Jurassic,

Are you always so positive when people don't see it the way you do?

He used a smilie, Ron. What more do you want before his oat bran kicks in? :D

First, Ronref, if you make a joke, use a :0 so we'll know. This is especially necessary when your "joke" can be read as your actual intent.interpretation/answer.

Second, can you have disconcertion if the shooter if the shooter never shoots the ball?

That's a great question, Tony. I actually wondered the same thing. But I think you can. I remember a situation when I was playing (50 or 60 years ago). I was on the line and a member of the other team lost his balance and fell flat on his face in the middle of the lane. Well, eveybody in the place started laughing, including me. If my coach hadn't screamed at me to shoot the ball, I might not have. If I hadn't shot the ball and been called for the 10-second violation, I think there still would've been a very good case there for disconcertion.

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.

Im a coach, and as many of you know we dont know all the rules :D, and i cant find my rule book anywhere(imagine that), can someone post the rule regarding disconcertion and rule 2.3, I would appreciate it. Thanks alot.

Sorry, I didn't know about the :0 (Joke signal).

Disconcertion is when an opponent attempts to distract the shooter of a FT by movement or noise. Judgement call.

2.3 amounts to when you don't know what to do next do whatever comes to mind. ;)

Actually it says the referee (not the umpires) can act on anything not covered in the rules, so you had better know the rules inside outside forwards and backwards if you want to correctly act under 2.3

Standing in the lane in front of the shooter is unsportsmanlike conduct, plain and simple. I would check to see if the player was having some kind of siezure. If not, we're shooting some extra free throws.

If this is deliberate, this is attempting to make a mockery of the game, and shouldn't be tolerated.

I doubt too many would actually count to 10 on this unless they were dying to call a simultaneous violation. I suspect most of you would say something to the player or the coach. I can only imagine what the player's coach would be howling all this time.

Unsportsmanlike conduct seems a bit excessive. I heard a longtime college coach for a DII school speak at a small clinic, and he had used it several times, and had been succesful in getting the ball back each time. I was just wondering what different officials though of it. I guess it depends on what kind of official you have, some one who is very techinical, or a real tough guy, on which way its interpreted and called, to call it unsportsmanlike and classify it in the same category as fighting, swearing, and taunting is a bit overboard.

Must there be an attempt for it to be considered disconcertion??

What if the team b player runs and tackles the shooter...disconcertion? No shot taken, I think we can have disconcertion without a shot!

Used what? Standing in the lane? :confused: How did he get the ball back?

The coach used mind control!

He got the ball back for his team, when he instructed his player to go stand in the lane, then a double lane violation was called, his team got the ball back. Anymore brain busters. Or is this what you do all day, sit on here and try and put people down and try and pick apart each scenario, you sound like a real winner, do you live with your mom still, oh wait let me guess you pay her $25 a week for rent, and you mow the lawn, keep up the good work buddy. Im sure you are a great official, Im sure that condescending sarcastic personality of yours makes you a pleasure to work with.

Chuck, the original post, is where a player stands in the lane from the opposing team during the free throw and the shooter doesnt shoot because they are confused about what is going on, from what i have been told its a double violation(lane and 10 sec(on the shooter)) and you go to the arrow, but as you can see it is up for debate.

Whoa! Where the heck did this come from? Ron's comment about tackling the FT shooter is, in fact, a case where you'd have disconcertion without actually shooting a FT. My question was a genuine one and the response about mind control was obviously in jest. As my daughter might say with her pre-teen coolness: "over-react much?"

Ok, I guess I can see that. But #1, I can't imagine that strategy actually working. As Dan said, how many of us are going to let it happen? And #2, I can't imagine any coach being that aware of the double violation rule and using it properly in a situation where it really mattered. So I didn't make the connection that you were talking about a coach actually using this exact scenario in a game. Sorry.

Bob Pratt, Coach at Saginaw Valley State University, now retired, hes still a professor there, if you want to look up his email adress im sure its listed at the website.

I thought I saw this play during the movie Hoosiers, Dennis Hopper tells the kids don't catch yourself watching the paint dry!

I found it hard to believe that it actually worked but he swears he used it on several occasions and it worked. Like i said i was just curious what the actual rule was, and if you guys would let it happen. If a coach told you what he was going to do before he used it, would you let it go?

Geeze Louis, are you a friend of this retired coach or his granddaughter? :rolleyes:

IMO this tactic sounds like those twice in every lifetime I need to bounce this free throw off the rim, get the rebound and make the putback with 2 seconds left things we see every now and then. Any coach who puts this on page 2 of his playbook is not doing himself or his players any favors.

Was the hole cut out of the bottom of the peach basket yet when he ran this play?

Like i said it was a short story at the end of a clinic, no relation or ties with the coach, i guess i came to the wrong place if i was looking for some reasonable anwers or discussion. From what i understand the guy was pretty accomplished, so take it for what its worth, and say what you want.

Yeah this is reasonable, we can use it as a model in the future.


Anymore brain busters. Or is this what you do all day, sit on here and try and put people down and try and pick apart each scenario, you sound like a real winner, do you live with your mom still, oh wait let me guess you pay her $25 a week for rent, and you mow the lawn, keep up the good work buddy. Im sure you are a great official, Im sure that condescending sarcastic personality of yours makes you a pleasure to work with.

Why don't you just start over again, we'll forget the entire thing since we're all so reasonable.

Dude, relax a little, would you? You got the answer. It's a double violation. That's the answer. You got some discussion about whether we'd actually let it happen or not, and about how likely the scenario was to actually happen. You also got some goofy comments about mind control and a peach basket. What's the problem with that?

Hang around a little while before you get ticked off. We answered the question pretty quickly and then had some fun, too. That's called conversation.

First time in the forum, maybe i jumped the gun, thanks for the fedback.

Just remember this forum is a stress relief!

Definitely glad you're here. Give us a chance. You'll become as wierd as we are. :D

So last spring in my Advanced Math class, I had a student ask:
"What's the date today, Mr. Millay?"

"It's Cinco de Mayo, Sue."

Her honest-to-goodness response: "Iknow it's Cinco de Mayo, but what's the DATE???"

How's that for some stress relief...

FWIW, there was a varsity coach (who was pretty successful) in Indiana some 20 years ago, that instructed his players to actually guard the foul shooter, if his player inadvertantly stepped in the lane way early. His thinking was that the shooter was getting another throw on a miss regardless, so do everything within your power to keep him from making the original free throw. The way I understand it, he did it two or three times in one season, until someone tagged his player with an unsportsmanlike T.

Now that I would T as by rule a free throw is "an unhindered try for goal."

Actually, Ron, I don't have disconcertion here. I'm blowing the whistle upon contact, which makes the ball dead since the act of shooting hasn't begun, and calling a flagrant personal foul prior to that FT being attempted. Assuming that this doesn't lead to a big fight, after reporting the foul, the game will be resumed by first awarding the never attempted FT, plus any merited FTs that were to follow, with the lane cleared and then administering the same player two more FTs for the flagrant personal.

An interrupted FT can be readministered without calling disconcertion. Just think of the play in which the shooter, his head coach, or a teammate requests a time-out after the ball is at the disposal of the free thrower, but before he attempts the try.