Two violations
 

B1 disconcerts the free thrower. After the disconcertion, the free thrower continues the motion and releases the free throw, then steps into the lane early.

What happens next?

One More Time ...
 

If you believe that the disconcertion ion caused the violation, blow the whistle, and do it again. If you don't believe that the disconcertion caused the violation, no basket if successful, go to the arrow.

Would I still blow the whistle in the 2nd scenario? ;)

Only if your area does. :p

Read the penalties section after 9-1 carefully. . .

Scrappy, I'm not sure I follow the question? Penalty 4 c. seems to cover it: B1 disconcerted, A1 violated, so A1 gets a substitute FT. Is your question about what if A1 actually made the first FT? Would you wipe it off and make them shoot it again?

NFHS 9-1 Penalties: 4. If there is a violation first by the free-thrower's opponent followed by the free thrower or a teammate:
c. If a violation by the free thrower follows disconcertion by an opponent, a substitute free throw shall be awarded.

It sounds like you have a simultaneous violation because the shooter entered the lane early. Entering the lane early is not a situation you can reasonably "blame" on disconcertion. So blow that shot dead, regardless of whether it is made or missed, and award a replacement throw.

9.1.3.G seems to back this up.

Ok, So the free thower gets another FT. Kinda like an offside penalty in FB?

I thought those only happened at the beginning of the game and overtime(s). ;)

The OP specifically said, "B1 disconcerts the free thrower." So, penalty C applies, and the free-thrower gets another chance.

Correct about that one, I stand corrected go to the table.:p

Yes. But does the entering the lane early cause the ball to become dead immediately? Or is it a delayed dead ball? I believe it's a dead ball immediately when the shooter violates.

My statement was meant to convey that I don't believe this to be a situation where you ignore the second violation just because the first one happened.

Go to the table? As in use the arrow? :confused:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle http://forum.officiating.com/images/...s/viewpost.gif
Entering the lane early is not a situation you can reasonably "blame" on disconcertion. .
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

"Always listen to Bob." ;)

Yeah, BITS that was my initial response and TJ was pointing out to me about the Jump Ball happening once or twice depending on if we go into overtime. In the situation, the FT'er is entitled to another FT due to the disconcertion

I would agree. But sometimes he's a man of too few words. ;)

Two secrets to success:

1) Don't tell everything you know.

That's awful binary of you.

When are we going to start talking about signed binary numbers!?

You know...

3-bit
-2 is 110

-or-

4-bit
-2 is 1110 :D

I just thought it was interesting that ANY violation that follows disconcertion is ignored; even if the second violation can't reasonably be "blamed" on the disconcertion.

Disconcertion -> Early entry = Replacement free throw.

Seems like it should be a double violation, but it's not.

One's complemt or two's complement? ;)

Good thing I don't drink coffee in the morning; I'd need a new monitor. :D

Thanks for the laugh!

I guess I was reading it wrong. I was reading simultaneous violation as well (or double violation in NCAA). Or am I? penalty "c" only says "a substitute free throw shall be awarded". That indicates that both penalties are enforced, which some how I managed to get hung up on. And yeah, I'm reading it the way you are now: any violation by the thrower following disconcertion by the opponent, no matter how unrelated the two may seem, results in a new free throw. "Shall."

But then, you still have to exercise judgment in determining whether it was disconcertion or not. And the word disconcert implies a direct cause and effect relationship. So maybe it really is not as black and white as it reads. :confused:

Man there are a lot of geeks here! :D

Note to Tony and the Mods: I didn't start this one ;)

Two's.