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

[bradfordwilkins]

Had a fun one today -- Coming down the floor and A1 and B1 are josstling at each other a little and A1 is trying to get open and runs out of bounds (a good 3 feet outside the sideline) and is simultaneously followed by B1 who goes out a step behind him.

We're talking both of them running down outside the sideline by 3 feet. I whistle the violation and brain goes into overdrive and I decide the only other Double "violation" I know of is a free throw and in that case we have a jump ball...so I went to the arrow, no complaints around.

But was I correct? And are there any other "double violations" ?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

Had a fun one today -- Coming down the floor and A1 and B1 are josstling at each other a little and A1 is trying to get open and runs out of bounds (a good 3 feet outside the sideline) and is simultaneously followed by B1 who goes out a step behind him.

We're talking both of them running down outside the sideline by 3 feet. I whistle the violation and brain goes into overdrive and I decide the only other Double "violation" I know of is a free throw and in that case we have a jump ball...so I went to the arrow, no complaints around.

But was I correct? And are there any other "double violations" ?

I don't believe that your situation is explicitly covered by the rules. Your solution has as much merit as any, but I would be tempted to resume at the POI. 2-3 seems to have to come into play here.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't believe that your situation is explicitly covered by the rules. Your solution has as much merit as any, but I would be tempted to resume at the POI. 2-3 seems to have to come into play here.

Or, call the violation on A1 as he went out of bounds followed by B1.

That said, in the case of a true simultaneous violation, I'd go w/ POI.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Or, call the violation on A1 as he went out of bounds followed by B1.

That said, in the case of a true simultaneous violation, I'd go w/ POI.

Of course, it would be better to decide that one violation preceded the other, but I took the words of the poster that the violations happened simultaneous at face value and tried to answer for a theoretical situation, not a practical one.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bradfordwilkins

Had a fun one today -- Coming down the floor and A1 and B1 are josstling at each other a little and A1 is trying to get open and runs out of bounds (a good 3 feet outside the sideline) and is simultaneously followed by B1 who goes out a step behind him.

Impossible by rule (or case). You must decide which happened first.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Impossible by rule (or case). You must decide which happened first.

I agree with Bob.