Need some help on a free throw situation.

[NURef]

I know this has been covered before but I couldn't find this situation in my book...HS summer game.

White is shooting first FT of a 1 & 1 and black moves during shot for violation. White makes free throw but commits violation in the act of shooting (crosses FT line). The violations did not occur exactly at the same time but both officials blew their whistles after the made basket. The lead caught black's violations and the trail caught the shooter's violation.

I'm thinking AP but some officals claim you would shoot the 1 & 1 again? AP sounds right, but I'm still pretty new. FYI - The officials actually awarded a point for the FT and then shot the second free throw...claiming that the initial act of black (two players switched positions) threw-off the shooter? That doesn't seem right...Thanks.

[just another ref]

Penalize both violations. Go to the arrow.

Penalties 9-1-4-b

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by NURef

I'm thinking AP but some officals claim you would shoot the 1 & 1 again? AP sounds right, but I'm still pretty new. FYI - The officials actually awarded a point for the FT and then shot the second free throw...claiming that the initial act of black (two players switched positions) threw-off the shooter? That doesn't seem right...Thanks.

Not sure how a defender violating could cause a shooter to cross the FT line.

No dice. No disconcertion. Double violation. AP.

[pizanno]

Cancel the FT and go to AP.

Other observations:

* Trail should whistle immediately when shooter violates, and not just after a successful FT.

* Lead shouldn't have blown their whistle at all. Delayed violation mechanic, then drop it after the successful FT.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Not sure how a defender violating could cause a shooter to cross the FT line.

No dice. No disconcertion. Double violation. AP.

While it is uncommon, it is possible....B4 leaning in loses balance and, in an attempt to not fall into the lane, flails his arms and makes a lot of noise before falling into the lane. I'll consider that disconcertion....even if it was not deliberate.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While it is uncommon, it is possible....B4 leaning in loses balance and, in an attempt to not fall into the lane, flails his arms and makes a lot of noise before falling into the lane. I'll consider that disconcertion....even if it was not deliberate.

Still, that doesn't wipe out the requirement of the FT shooter not stepping over the line before the ball hits the rim. Now, if A3 enters the lane too early, then yes, you could judge B4's action as the cause.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Still, that doesn't wipe out the requirement of the FT shooter not stepping over the line before the ball hits the rim. Now, if A3 enters the lane too early, then yes, you could judge B4's action as the cause.

Sure it can. If you feel that a defender's actions led to the shooter commiting a violation, only the defender's violation is penalized.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sure it can. If you feel that a defender's actions led to the shooter commiting a violation, only the defender's violation is penalized.

Camron,
As I just posted above, the shooter's violation must also be penalized if the goal is made. You can't count an illegally scored FT. So BadNews is correct that disconcertion doesn't eliminate the requirement that the thrower not cross the line.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

While it is uncommon, it is possible....B4 leaning in loses balance and, in an attempt to not fall into the lane, flails his arms and makes a lot of noise before falling into the lane. I'll consider that disconcertion....even if it was not deliberate.

I'm with the rest of you guys here, and would call a double violation then use the AP arrow, but Camron has a legitimate point.

If the official does deem that something done by an opponent qualifies as disconcertion, then any violation by the shooter will only be considered in deciding if a legal goal is scored, but otherwise not penalized. So in the situation at hand, the FT cannot count as it was not legally scored due to the shooter crossing the FT line, but if the official deemed the defender to have disconcerted, then a substitute throw would be awarded. Essentially, administering the 1 & 1 over again would be the right way to handle it in that specific case.

The officials on the game cannot possibly have been correct, no matter what they called, since they scored a FT that was illegally made.