What I hope is the last freaking AP throw-in quiz
 

A1 to inbound on an AP throw-in. During the throw-in, the ball is simultaneously kicked by A2 and B1. Does team A retain the arrow for the subsequent throw-in? :confused:

Wow that would be interesting to see. I would have a double violation (if there is such a thing) which again would be AP throw in (in my mindk ie: held ball). The first AP didnt complete, therefore, A1 to inbound on same AP throw-in. Thats my final answer. :)

aaahhh, I just caught up on your series of AP questions... very good.

Oh yeah?

How about this:

On an AP throw-in, A1 throws the ball over the basket.

While the ball is in the cylinder, A1 and B1 simultaneously commit BI.

Or, B1 commits BI.

Or, B1 commits BI at the same time as A1 kicks the ball.

Ruling..? ;)

Oh my, so this is what off season drives you to.... Mark did you find those meds?

On a double violation you go to the AP arrow, which by now is spinning like a weather vane in a tornado:D

Mark, the whistle would be jump ball. There's no such thing as a double kick violation, or I should say I don't think there is such a thing. I'm sure Mr. Rulebook will correct me if I'm wrong. In NCAA Women's, maybe we can say the offensive kick ball, or vice-versa came first and go that route. Interesting.... If I had two players do this, I would eject both of them for flagrant fouls attempting to kick each other. :D

Have a nice day

A1 kicks the ball at the same time that B1 commits Basket interference!?!

Is A1 Pele?

Why only in NCAA Women's? Couldn't you make the same ruling at any level? I've had situations where, at first, it appeared players from opposite teams hit the ball OOB simultaneously, but upon further reflection, I "realized" one hit it just a split mini-micro-second before the other one.

I've got a false double violation with agravating circumstances, making it a second degree violation.
B1 commits BI, violation.
A1 kicks the ball at the same time, meaning she is also goal tending. Normally, with the double violation, we'd go POI with just some simple fines for both. However, with the agravating circumstances, this becomes a second degree violation on A1 while only a third degree violation on B1.

I'm giving the ball to A1.

Isn't the correct call a simultaneous illegal chop block and balk? In that case, you give the ball to the player whose number is a perfect square but not divisible by pi.

Meds, meds, my kingdom for some meds. :o

Mark:

You are one sick puppy. :D

MTD, Sr.

I'll go with Snaq's second degree false double violation; and depending on which half of the court and on which island it happened on in Alaska, we may not whistle it until tomorrow.

Arf! Puke!

Yup, I am. :p

If A1 were Pele, that would change the answer, because we need to protect the famous players.

Maybe A1 has a prosthesis that became detached. OF course, in this instance, A1 couldn't complain about the call because s/he doesn't have a leg to stand on. (Sorry, I had to say that so Mark wouldn't)