I should be a double violation. Don't have the book with me but in our clinic it was discussed. The rule is unchanged except for violations by opponents who are both in a marked lane space. [/B][/QUOTE]It's definitely a double violation,and is unchanged.Rule 9-1Penalty3 covered it last year.The problem is that,when they added "simultaneous" to the wording of the old R9-1Penalty3,they didn't re-cover the particular case that Nevada pointed out in the new R9-1Penalty4.

It's definitely a double violation,and is unchanged.Rule 9-1Penalty3 covered it last year.The problem is that,when they added "simultaneous" to the wording of the old R9-1Penalty3,they didn't re-cover the particular case that Nevada pointed out in the new R9-1Penalty4. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree. I believe the intent of the new rule change was to not penalize a player who is drawn into the lane by another player. It is not reasonable to believe that if a player behind the 3-pt. line and the free throw line extended is the first to violate, that this would then cause an offensive player in a marked lane-space to violate.
Those players just aren't looking out there.
I hope it doesn't happen in one of my games until the rule is clarified, but if it does I am going to call a double violation. I will probably have a harder time convincing my fellow officials than the coaches though!

I have to disagree with you on this one. The rule has always allowed us to ignore an offensive violation that was caused by a defensive fake.