Double violation... but not on a free throw shot

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bas2456

If you're going to go POI, why whistle the play dead at all? WOuldn't it make more sense to call it on A, since he went out first, if you're going to call it at all?

Thought of that too, but again, practical versus theoretical...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Thought of that too, but again, practical versus theoretical.

Elwood: What kind of advice do you usually have here?
Claire: Oh, we got both kinds. We got practical and theoretical.

[Back In The Saddle]

Not sure why folks are suggesting POI on this? We have at least one example of a simultaneous violation and its remedy, it goes to the AP. POI, OTOH, has a specified list of times to use it, and this isn't one of them. You could obviously go either way by invoking 2-3, but I'd argue you'll be more correct to go with the established precedent for simultaneous violations.

[bradfordwilkins]

Honestly it was as simultaneous... saw the whole thing take place right in front of me. And blatant enough (not just a foot off the court) that we had a clear violation. So go with that when offering thoughts.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

Honestly it was as simultaneous... saw the whole thing take place right in front of me. And blatant enough (not just a foot off the court) that we had a clear violation. So go with that when offering thoughts.

Both players left the court at exactly the same time? I don't care that they both ended up running out of bounds, but which one left the court before the other? That's the player who violated first.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Both players left the court at exactly the same time? I don't care that they both ended up running out of bounds, but which one left the court before the other? That's the player who violated first.

It's possible that the defense reacted quickly enough that he stepped out of bounds at virtually the same time; making a simultaneous violation the only valid call (or a no-call).

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's possible that the defense reacted quickly enough that he stepped out of bounds at virtually the same time; making a simultaneous violation the only valid call (or a no-call).

As a practical matter (not a theoretical one) in a game, if I'm calling this violation, I'm determining which one of them committed the violation first. Period.

[Adam]

Isn't the double violation on a free throw POI? If you have another shot, you go to that. If not, you go to the arrow (which is POI in this case).

Assume double violation on a Tech free throw, you going to the arrow?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Isn't the double violation on a free throw POI? If you have another shot, you go to that. If not, you go to the arrow (which is POI in this case).

Assume double violation on a Tech free throw, you going to the arrow?

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.

[Adam]

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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 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.