You make the FT call - for newbies

[zm1283]

A) AP
B) AP
C) Wipe off the first shot, shoot the second (Edit: I'm thinking it matters which team violated first)
D) AP

By the way, you had two "B's" in there.

[Scratch85]

ZM1283: I think he needs to give more information about the double violation to get a correct book answer.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

ZM1283: I think he needs to give more information about the double violation to get a correct book answer.

I'm thinking the same thing...

[zm1283]

Okay lets try again....

A) If the offense violates first, wouldn't you hit the whistle and wipe it off immediately? If defense violates first, then offense, go to the arrow.

B) Same as A

C) If the offense violates first, wipe it off immediately. Same if the defense violates first. Shoot the second FT as normal.

D) AP if defense violates followed by offense. If offense is first, wipe it off. Throw-in for the other team at the spot nearest the violation on the end line.

[bob jenkins]

I assume he menat "simultaneous" violation, not "double violation". So, both teams violated at teh same time -- and it doesn't matter whether both were on the lane, or one (or both) was off the lane.

If it's one team followed by another, the resulting action might be the same as the simultaneous violation, but it's not a simultaneous violation.

[Adam]

Assume that if you're calling both violations, you are not ignoring the other. Rule accordingly.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

ZM1283: I think he needs to give more information about the double violation to get a correct book answer.

Why?

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

ZM1283: I think he needs to give more information about the double violation to get a correct book answer.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why?

Because I don't have any idea what a double violation during a FT situation might be. As Bob mentions, he may mean a simultaneous violation. Since most of us know that Padgett may lead us down a wandering path (sometimes for entertainment and sometimes for knowledge) from time to time, I am just waiting for his answer.

I take that back, I have an idea what someone might refer to as a double violation but since there are a few variations of that, some may be penalized as a simultaneous violation and therefore, I am not sure how to address a "double violation." Assuming a double violation is as described in the OP, WreckRef has pretty good answer.

[Adam]

If you have WreckRef's scenario, then you don't have a simultaneous violation; you only have one as the 2nd is ignored.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If you have WreckRef's scenario, then you don't have a simultaneous violation; you only have one as the 2nd is ignored.

WreckRef has a caveat. If . . . see ZM1283.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

WreckRef has a caveat. If . . . see ZM1283.

True enough.