If B1 pulls A1 (or any Ax player) into the lane, I'm simply calling the foul. The spirit and intent of the rules is clear that they are designed to prevent one team from benefiting from this play. By disallowing the freethrow, B has benefited from an underhanded tactic.
Shot counts, intentional foul on B1, two extra shots for A1, pull everyone off the lane as A will get their throwin under the basket.

In the original scenario defender violates and then A1 violates by entering the lane after releasing the shot. That's a double violation, go to AP arrow.

I fail to see how disconcertion would cause a shooter to enter too early. Camron has added all kinds of variables to justify his initial answer.

Camron:

I hope that my defense of your position is not the kiss of death to your position. Therefore: NFHS R9-S1, Penalty 4c states: "If there is a violation first by the free-thrower's opponent followed by the free thrower or a teammate and a violation by the free thrower follows disconcertion by an opponent, a substitute free throw shall be awarded." This penalty would imply that Camron is correct in scoring the free throw in the original play if in the judgement of the official there was disconcertion.

MTD, Sr.

Hey, watch it, or I'll start throwing out words like "petulant" or "narcissist."
Here, I'll use it in a sentence.

"Sometimes, xxxxx can be a petulant narcissist."

Hey, maybe M&M can set up a poll to see who xxxxx is. :)

AND, sometimes yyyyy is nefarious prevaricator. :mad:

To rule correctly, you have to know why A1 entered the lane...you can assume he did so on his own but that is merely an assumption.

I didn't add "variables" to justify my answer...my original answer was correct as it was and I stand by it. I said that while it was uncommon, I could imagine scenarios that would cause me to ignore a violation by the shooter. I was asked for examples of such situations and provided them. I made a general statement to cover all posibilities rather than a specific statement that had holes in it.