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

[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.

[Adam]

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.