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...

[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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

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" ?

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

Kudos.