Free throw violation

[rbruno]

Think we might have messed this up.
Player A-1 is at the line for the first of a one and one. He has the ball and is ready to shoot when one of the players notices that B-1 is not occupying a lane space adjacent to the basket and is switched with A-2 who is in that space.
Before the shot A-2 and B-1 realize that they are in the wrong spaces and change positions. The trail official calls a free throw violation on A-1 and awards the ball to Team B under the hoop.
Should this have been a double violation with the possesion arrow determining who got the ball?

[jkjenning]

Normally, Lead would have recalled the ball from the shooter and reset after everyone was properly in place.

[AFHusker]

Case 9.1.2 Situation B deals with this. Once the ball is at the shooter's disposal, its too late to bring it back to correct the player's position. Simultaneous violation should be called utilizing the AP to put the ball in play.

[Raymond]

I had this last week. I was trail (3-man) and I blew my whistle just after ball was at free-thrower's disposal, I then stepped in and brought situation to lead's attention, and he called for the ball back. We had players switch places and resumed administration of free throw(s). No one had a problem with it. If questioned, I would have said I noticed it before ball was at free-thrower's disposal but I was slow in blowing my whistle.

[Adam]

IIRC, the player who initiates this switch is the one who gets penalized. No reason to call A1 for a penalty. A2, it depends. B1, it depends. If they both just kind of look at each other and move (doubtful), you could go double violation and hit the arrow.

[AFHusker]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

IIRC, the player who initiates this switch is the one who gets penalized. No reason to call A1 for a penalty. A2, it depends. B1, it depends. If they both just kind of look at each other and move (doubtful), you could go double violation and hit the arrow.

The way the case play reads, you have a violation before they moved because they weren't in the correct alignment.

[jkjenning]

Originally Posted by AFHusker

Case 9.1.2 Situation B deals with this. Once the ball is at the shooter's disposal, its too late to bring it back to correct the player's position. Simultaneous violation should be called utilizing the AP to put the ball in play.

This is good to know - thanks AF. A major focus for the off-season [well, summer season] is to get back into the rules sytematically. This situation seems to be one of those in which we can be put players into a position that seems unfair and brings us heat, therefore it's especially good to work hard and avoid this.

It's similar to the case in which you grant a timeout which a coach denies having asked for and by rule the timeout has to be assessed anyway. One of the playoff games I've watched this season had that happen and the other team was simply called back from their timeout huddle onto the floor... which looks like its correct, or at least "ok", if you don't know the rules but looks bad if you do - I guess lining players up and asking for the ball back to correct a misalignment is the same sort of situation - now I know!

What is interesting in the case you reference is that once the try has ended [successfully or unsuccessfully] the misalignment is simply ignored... that seems a bit peculiar.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AFHusker

The way the case play reads, you have a violation before they moved because they weren't in the correct alignment.

You're right. I read the play after I made that post; I was applying the rule that would be enforced if the first lane space wasn't involved.