What do you call here

[kokayne]

Varsity boys game last night. My partner and I line the men to shoot two free throws. After I give the ball to the shooter, a defensive player walks onto the lane from outside the three point line. Then after seeing that he can switch positions with one of the offensive players moves onto another spot and then the offensive player move as a result. What is the call?

[zebraman]

I think I'd say that the shooter was disconcerted and call the defensive violation.
Z

[mdray]

if the ball goes in, ignore the violation.
if the shot is missed, award another shot for the defender's violation. with the new rule this year, this looks like a sitch where we only penalize the first violation

[hawkk]

Yet another scenario that shows why the rule should be changed to the following:

If the FT is made, ignore all violations (unless official determines that Offense violated trying to draw a disconcerntion violation; seee below).

If the FT is missed:

(1) Violation by offense; D gets the ball

(2) Violation by D; O gets the ball UNLESS the official calls disconcertion (which would be presumed if the ball is not live after the FT) in which case the FT is retaken. (Other than dead ball situations, this would probably only be called in the context of less than a second to play with a FT to tie or win the game.)

I think someone told me FIBA does something similar -- it lets the punishment fit the crime: a violation in trying to get the rebound gives the ball to the other side.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by kokayne
Then after seeing that he can switch positions with one of the offensive players moves onto another spot and then the offensive player move as a result.

What you really want to know is if this is a simultaneous violation by each team. No, it is not.
Case book 9.1.4 B Comment: If a Team B player uses verbal tactics like "you're in my space" or a time-out request to fake an opponent into violations, only the fake is penalized.

Since you wrote that the offensive player moved as a result of something the defensive player did, this should be handled as a fake which caused the other team to violate. Only the fake is penalized. This part of the rule was the same last year too! It will just likely be called correctly more this year with the rule change, even though the first violation in this case did not occur in a marked lane space and technically isn't part of the new change.

[Marty Rogers]

Mdray is correct. And it is a rule change per Rule 9-2-1,
PENALTY:Section 4. If there is a violation first by the free thrower's opponent, followed by the thrower or teammate: b) addresses if the second violation (offense) is from outside the three-point line, then you penalize both violations. In all other cases, the first violation only is penalized.

Hawkk: With all due respect, your post doesn't make sense, at least to me. Also, why discuss how and why rules should be, could be, and ought to be different than they are (how YOU think they should be)? We need to know and understand the rules, as written, according to NFHS (or whatever code you are working), like them, or not. Suggestions for change may be addresssed to the Rules Committee for consideration.

[DrakeM]

Me? If it happens JUST as I give the ball to the shooter, I get the ball back and let the defender get settled, then proceeed from there.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Marty Rogers
Mdray is correct. And it is a rule change per Rule 9-2-1,
PENALTY:Section 4.

Marty,
The rule you cited above actually only tells us to ignore the second violation when BOTH offenders are in a marked lane space. See part (a).
Since, in this case, the first violation was by the defense and did not happen in a marked lane-space, part (a) does not apply. Strangely, niether does part (b) since the offensive violation is not by the free thrower or by a teammate outside of the 3-pt. line and foul line extended.
That is why I wrote what I did in my first post about this being a fake and then part (d) can be used.

Now I am pondering what to do if the defense behind the free-throw line extended and the three-point line violates first and then an offensive player in a marked lane-space violates.
It is certainly an oversight, but this case is not covered in the new rule!
Anyone who knows how to get in touch with the members of the rules committee needs to tell them this, so that they may add a part (e).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
[/B]

Now I am pondering what to do if the defense behind the free-throw line extended and the three-point line violates first and then an offensive player in a marked lane-space violates.
It is certainly an oversight, but this case is not covered in the new rule!
Anyone who knows how to get in touch with the members of the rules committee needs to tell them this, so that they may add a part (e). [/B][/QUOTE]That is a pressing problem!

[hawkk]

Originally posted by Marty Rogers
Mdray is correct.

Hawkk: With all due respect, your post doesn't make sense, at least to me. Also, why discuss how and why rules should be, could be, and ought to be different than they are (how YOU think they should be)? We need to know and understand the rules, as written, according to NFHS (or whatever code you are working), like them, or not. Suggestions for change may be addresssed to the Rules Committee for consideration.

I'm not sure what you mean by doesn't make sense -- you think my proposed rule is a dumb idea, or you can't tell what the proposal is. Either way, you are oviously entiled to your opinion. Simply, I think the violations are rebounding violations, and therefore the remedy should pertain to the rebound, not the shot.

Why, you wonder, would I post a suggestion here on what I think the rule should be? B/c I know there are a lot of smart officials on this board, some of whom do have connections with the Rules Committee, directly or indirectly. And it seems to me that if folk here read it and say,hey, that makes sense and would make the game better, they might pass it on. And if those experienced folk say, hey, that's stupid becuase ____________, I learn something new about the game. That's why, on rare occaisons, I post ideas on what I think might make the game better. (IMHO the best change that could be made right now would be to get rid of the hopelessly stupid AP arrow -- at least for everyone but jr hi girls ....)

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by hawkk
Why, you wonder, would I post a suggestion here on what I think the rule should be? B/c I know there are a lot of smart officials on this board, some of whom do have connections with the Rules Committee,

I think it's fair to say that our lonnnnnnggggg discussions of what should be called when the inbounder fails to step OOB before passing up the floor was part of the impetus that led to the clarification this year stating that this kind of play is definitely a throw-in violation, and not a delay warning, or a do-over.

Wow, that's a long sentence. But the point is, our discussions here sometimes have an indirect, but real, effect on the rulebook.

Chuck

[williebfree]

That is interesting, because I believe I was the one that intitiated that multi-multi page dialogue.....

and I invented the internet

[ScottParks]

Go Al!

[williebfree]

The creativity of our animators is simply amazing..... What next?

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Now I am pondering what to do if the defense behind the free-throw line extended and the three-point line violates first and then an offensive player in a marked lane-space violates.
It is certainly an oversight, but this case is not covered in the new rule!
Anyone who knows how to get in touch with the members of the rules committee needs to tell them this, so that they may add a part (e). [/B]

That is a pressing problem!
[/B][/QUOTE]

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.