You make the FT call - for newbies
 

Newbies - although this doesn't come up a lot, when it does, you're expected to make an immediate ruling. What is the ruling when a double violation (violation by both the non-shooting then shooting teams) occurs in the following free throw situations:

A) first shot of a one-and-one

B) a one shot only situation

C) first shot of a two shot situation (same as first or second shot of a three shot situation)

D) last shot in any two or three shot situation

What's the score and how much time is left? :D

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.

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

A) Count it if good, re-shoot if not
B) Same as A
C) Same as A
D) Same as A

However, this changes if the violator from offense is the shooter or someone behind the FT line extended behind the arc.

If shooter violates or offense behind FT line extended & behind arc then see zm1283's first answer.

This assumes Mark actually intending to say THEN in his original situation.

I'm thinking the same thing...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

True enough.