The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 14, 2007, 10:32am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Winchester, NH
Posts: 184
Which rule do I follow?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Durkee
The ball is at the disposal of A1 for the second of two free throws. B1 steps into the lane, and then A4, who is not occupying a lane space, steps below the free throw line extended. When A4 committed his violation, he was near the sideline. As prescribed in 9-1-Penalties 3 and 4b, officials cancel the goal and administer an "altenating-possesion throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the simultaneous violation occurred." Where is the nearest spot?
While looking for another rule I found 6-4-3g. 6-4-3, when compbined with part "g," says, "Alternating-possession throw-ins shall be from the out of bounds spot nearest to where the ball was located. An alternating-possession throw-in shall result when:...Simultaneous floor or free throw violations occur."

This would solve the problem from the original post, but it seems to contradict the language of 9-1 Penalties 3 and 4. Is it indeed a contradiction, or am I missing something? If it is a contradiction, is there some way to resolve it?
__________________
Insert cool signature line here!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 14, 2007, 07:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Durkee
While looking for another rule I found 6-4-3g. 6-4-3, when compbined with part "g," says, "Alternating-possession throw-ins shall be from the out of bounds spot nearest to where the ball was located. An alternating-possession throw-in shall result when:...Simultaneous floor or free throw violations occur."

This would solve the problem from the original post, but it seems to contradict the language of 9-1 Penalties 3 and 4. Is it indeed a contradiction, or am I missing something? If it is a contradiction, is there some way to resolve it?
Nice work, Rick.
It seems that there is a contradiction in the two rules and that the NFHS needs to address this by changing one of them.

In the meantime, I would suggest that you forget everything that I wrote above and go with the AP rule in the book. I say this because the books do not currently provide a method to determine where a simultaneous violation occurred. So award the throw-in to the team entitled to such by the AP arrow from the intersection of the end line and one of the FT lane lines, since the ball was in the FT semi-circle.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bag the OOB Spot? ljudge Football 15 Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:10pm
spot? jr Basketball 1 Tue Nov 22, 2005 03:02am
OOB spot........ zebra44 Basketball 4 Sat Mar 12, 2005 08:43am
Thrown in spot gostars Basketball 5 Wed Dec 08, 2004 09:02am
Enforcement Spot Florida Rookie Football 4 Mon Nov 22, 2004 09:03am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:38pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1