I'm not convinced. By rule opponents can simultaneously violate during a free throw, during a jump ball, simultaneously commit BI, simultaneously goaltend. Those are specifically acknowledged using the verbiage "simultaneous violation" or "simultaneously commit violations". It is also, by rule, possible for opponents to simultaneously commit an OOB violation by simultaneously being the last to touch the ball before it goes OOB.

The somewhat recent expansion of defensive violations (excessive swinging of elbows and leaving the court) only expands the combinations and permutations of possible simultaneous violations.

So while by the laws of physics you are correct, I'm not so sure about the rules of basketball.

Is it? What interrupted activity are we returning to on a simultaneous FT violation? Even on a FT for a technical foul? Or are we administering the prescribed penalty for the simultaneous violation?

Of the clearly acknowledged simultaneous violations I mentioned in a previous post...
* Sim. FT violations proceed to the next FT or to the AP, per penalty
* Sim. jump ball violations result in another jump ball, per penalty
* Sim. BI or goaltending violations result in AP, per penalty
* Sim. OOB violations result in AP, per penalty

Sim. violations on the final FT for a technical foul is a little more complicated and not specifically covered. But it's hardly a unique case. Whenever we start mixing multiple infractions we often are required to deviate from the prescribed penalty, especially when resuming play. In this case we are going to wipe off the made free throw per penalty for sim. FT violation, but then give the shooting team the ball for a division line throw-in. Is that throw-in a return to the point where the game was interrupted, or it is simply the next step of the technical foul penalty?

Looked at another way, if technical foul penalty administration is the current activity, a sim. FT violation does not interrupt that activity, it merely concludes one stage/step/phase of that activity. We then proceed to the next one.

You're right, however.... :)
Looking at penalty 3 in rule 9-1, it's clear that the ball is awarded via the arrow. However, POI makes more logical sense to me in this situation.

If the simultaneous violation occurs when more free throws are to be shot, those free throws are shot and play continues as normal. This actually contradicts 9-1 penalty 3, since we are supposed to penalize everything in the order it happened. Since the violation happened after the foul, penalty 3 should be enforced. 9.1.3M(b) also goes against this principal, since the BI occurred after the foul. The case play says play continues from the free throw as normal, however, inferring this double violation actually goes to POI.

I think the penalty in 3 should indicate POI rather than AP. That would reflect the way it's actually called on simultaneous FT violations (next shot or AP if no more shots are to follow).

This would affect the hypothetical in the OP, as well as the situation where, on the 2nd of two technical foul or intentional foul free throws, there is a simultaneous violation. As the rule reads now, by the letter, you would go to AP in this case instead of granting a throwin to the team who was fouled.

I guess this comes down to a fundamental discussion of what POI is, what it's suitable for, etc. POI as it is currently defined is well-suited to determining how to resume play when it is interrupted by something unrelated to the play at hand (e.g., the lights go out, fixing a CE, a double foul away from the play). A violation, however, is not an interruption to play, it is play. The definition of POI would have to be altered to encompass violations.

We are not supposed to penalize "everything" in the order it happens, only fouls. "Penalties for fouls are administered in the order in which the fouls occurred." (NFHS 8-7) Fouls and violations are different beasts.I agree, the rules as written do not reflect actual practice. A couple years ago I attempted to re-write some of this just as an excercise.

POI, as it currently exists, doesn't really suit dealing with violations, even though there are similarities. That could be changed. But there are fundamental differences between fouls and violations, so I'm not sure whether it would make sense, or that the result would be clearer than what we have now.

My only quibble is that it is not only double fouls away from the play that go POI. All double fouls are POI, and i don't see a fundamental reason their rule 9 equivalent shouldn't be the same.

Agreed. The reason for going to the POI with a double foul is that it's no part of the penalty for a double foul to award the ball to one team rather than the other. POI gives us a procedure for awarding the ball and going on with the game.

The same reasoning applies in principle to double violations.

Against expectations, I stumbled across an actual answer to this in the rule book today.

"...An alternating-possession throw-in shall result when:
c. Simultaneous floor or free-throw violations occur." (NFHS 6-4-3c)

Leaving the floor is a floor violation per NFHS 4-46, and simultaneous floor violations result in an AP throw-in.

LOL, I did the same thing and almost posted it.

I Knew There Was A Good Reason Why I Took You Off My Ignore List ...
 

Kudos.