Simultaneous Lane Violatins

[CK]

Does anyone but me think that 9-1-3 is unfair? I understand how this fits into the rules as written. This just does not seem Fair.

CK

[representing]

Originally Posted by CK

Does anyone but me think that 9-1-3 is unfair? I understand how this fits into the rules as written. This just does not seem Fair.

CK

What do you think would be so unfair about it?

[Adam]

Going by the title (book's in the car with my stuff), I assume you're talking about the fact that a simultaneous FT violation that occurs during what is not the final free throw is essentially a free pass for the defensive side of it. I agree, but I'm not sure what could be done differently.

Maybe clear the lane for the final shot and go to the arrow.

[CK]

Snaq's once again you are correct. Not sure either, soliciting thoughts on this subject. Representing????????.

CK

[Raymond]

It's fair in that the offense has committed a violation yet still has a 50/50 chance of retaining possession.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's fair in that the offense has committed a violation yet still has a 50/50 chance of retaining possession.

He's talking about when it happens on the first of two free throws. The penalty is identical to that of a simple offensive FT violation. Cancel the shot and move to the next one.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Going by the title (book's in the car with my stuff), I assume you're talking about the fact that a simultaneous FT violation that occurs during what is not the final free throw is essentially a free pass for the defensive side of it. I agree, but I'm not sure what could be done differently.

Maybe clear the lane for the final shot and go to the arrow.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

He's talking about when it happens on the first of two free throws. The penalty is identical to that of a simple offensive FT violation. Cancel the shot and move to the next one.

Oh, well in that case, I still don't see it as that unfair. It's a lot fairer than the CE rules.

[NCAAREF]

There is no such thing as a "simultaneous FT violation". End of issue

[Adam]

Originally Posted by NCAAREF

There is no such thing as a "simultaneous FT violation". End of issue

Really? I'll bet you representing's game check there is.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by CK

Does anyone but me think that 9-1-3 is unfair? I understand how this fits into the rules as written. This just does not seem Fair.

CK

Are you talking about rule 9-1-3 or rule 9-1PENALTIES(Section 1) 3?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by NCAAREF

There is no such thing as a "simultaneous FT violation". End of issue

NFHS rule 9-1PENALTIES(Section 1) 3 doesn't exist? Have you told the FED rulesmakers that? I'll bet that they're gonna be pissed off when they find out about it.

[CK]

9-1PENALTIES(Section 1) 3

[CK]

Sorry JR I corrected this. My Bad.
Any more thoughts on this rule?

CK