Gentlemen, I think you have read this ruling wrong.

"Ruling: Whether or not the whistle was sounded inadvertently it has the same result. (THE BALL IS DEAD AND NO SHOT MAY BE ATTEMPTED - my understanding and further stated in the next sentence) In (a) and (c), the ball becomes dead immediately"

I would never stop everything and then give a player two attempts to make one score. If that were the case shouldn't we also clear the lane for the first make-up attempt?

DTTB-You would not have to clear the lane, With that type of reasoning(not meaning anything bad), you would have the lanes cleared on any multiple shot free throw.

AK ref SE

Clearing the lane was a joke
 

Agreed! It was a facitious question.

The point is that casebook play 6.7.5 DOES NOT say give a shooter two attempts after the ball has been whistled dead.

If the shot had not been released at the time of the whistle (inadvertent or not) the ball is dead and no attempt can now be made. At this point, we do not give the shooter two attempts. He gets a single attempt for the one we have just interrupted.

If the ball has been released, the whistle does not create a dead ball (until the free throw ends - when the shot is successful or plainly misses). If the already released attempt is not successful, the official should award a SINGLE make-up free throw for the one just interrupted. If the already released attempt is successful, count it; hand the ball to the violating team for an end-line throw-in.

This case play is not a rule change. It is the way we have always administered this rule.

At the end of the ruling is clearly states that;
"Because B1 violated, in all cases, a SUBSTITUTE throw is awarded if the free-throw attempt by A1 is unsuccessful"

This would include case (a) where an inadvertant whistle was sounded after B1 violated and before A1 starts the free-throw motion.

Don't worry about my toes. Anyone elses answer is fine with me (if it's correct ;)). I didn't want Juulie to think I was ignoring her when I was addressed.

D'town Tony,
Please go read the first post by Mike Burns in this thread and the casebook play he cites therein from rule 9.
I used to think as you do, until just two days ago, when Mike pointed out this casebook ruling to me. Now I will give two shots.