FT Shooter A1 misses the rim on the shot. But before that B1, located on a lane-marked space enters the lane before the ball has a chance to make it to the rim.

Did we conclude that under the new rule that this was a double violation? Or is this a case of where the first violation is enforced and the second one is ignored?

Peace

According to the new rule the first violation is the one penalized so it sounds like an additional FT to me.

Lane-Marked space violation??
 

Yeah, but is this considered a lane-marked space violation for the thrower not to hit the rim on the attempt? I know it would not be the case if a player behind the 3 point line came in too early and violated. But is the thrower considered to be in a lane-marked space. My first impression is no, but that is why I am asking.

Peace

No change!
 

There has been no change in the rule in situations like this.The new rule only applies to two "lane line" violations.If one of the violations is not a "lane line" violation,the rule is the same as before.In this case,no FT and AP if there was not another FT to follow.

See casebook play 6.3.3SitB.

The only way he gets another FT is if you rule the violation by B1 disconcerted A1.

Not true.They get another FT if the double violation occured on the first of 2 FT's,or first or second of 3 FT's.It's an AP if it's 1/1 or the last FT.

Of course you're correct wizened one.

What I was attempting to say was that the only way he gets to do this one over is if you rule the violation by B1 disconcerted A1.

Note to self: Write what you mean to say and then check it again :D

I would say that if the ball is still above the rim when B1 steps in, A1 gets another attempt with resumtion of play. A1's shot, could (devine intervention) still hit the rim, don't guess! If A1's shot has passed the rim and B1 enters the lane then A1 has violated and B gets ball OOB.

4-20-3 The free throw ends when the try is successful, when it is certain the try will not be successful, when the try touches the floor or any player, or when the ball becomes dead.

I'd call violation on B1, shooting again. (Double violations are a pain, avoid them if you can)

Am I missing something here?:confused:I'm not sure that I see your point.
This whole sitch is predicated on A1 missing the rim on his FT.If he does,it's a violation on A1-and it has to be called,making the sitch a double violation.The ball being above the rim doesn't mean a thing.Naturally,it does matter if the FT has hit the backboard or the rim before B1 steps in.If it has,then you don't have a B1 violation.But that's not the case in this sitch.All the official has to worry about is whether the shot was made or missed,and-if it was missed,did it hit the rim.If the FT was made,you ignore the B violation.If the FT was missed but hit the rim,you just award the substitute FT for the B violation.
Guessing isn't involved at all.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 20th, 2003 at 02:25 PM]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
[B]Am I missing something here?:confused:I'm not sure that I see your point.
This whole sitch is predicated on A1 missing the rim on his FT.If he does,it's a violation on A1-and it has to be called,making the sitch a double violation.The ball being above the rim doesn't mean a thing.Naturally,it does matter if the FT has hit the backboard or the rim before B1 steps in.If it has,then you don't have a B1 violation.But that's not the case in this sitch.All the official has to worry about is whether the shot was made or missed,and-if it was missed,did it hit the rim.If the FT was made,you ignore the B violation.If the FT was missed but hit the rim,you just award the substitute FT for the B violation.
Guessing isn't involved at all.



[Edited by MN 3 Sport Ref on Jan 20th, 2003 at 03:34 PM]

JR nails it. Unless the actions of B1 clearly disconsert the shooter BEFORE the ball is released (steping in and stomping or waving) we have a double violation. Either shoot second shot or go to AP. There is a case in the case book that clearly describes this (do not have case book w/ today)

Good point about the "disconsertion" aspect.

Somewhat related sitch happened a couple of weeks ago. Girls HS Varsity. A1 at line for 2 shots late in close game. Just before she was to release shot B1 who was behind A1 above FT extended takes a couple of loud steps stomping feet causing A1 to cringe and step over line. We called disconsertion on B1 and allowed A1 to reshoot first shot. Told B1 any more blatent acts to disconsert could result in unsporting T.

had this sitch last week....shooting one free throw...two opponents along the lane (neither of which was in the first lane space) look at each other and realize they are in each other's space and switch after the shooter had the ball at her disposal; I called a double violation and was ready to go AP, but my partner said, under the new rule, since the defense moved "first" in the switching process, we should ignore the movement by the shooter's teammate and only penalize the defensive player's movement if the FT is missed; any thoughts? is this regarded as a simultaneous violation?

Partner be wrong.Simultaneous laneline violations are covered under the new rule.If they both moved out of their lanes at the same time,it is a simultaneous violation.No FT-and go with the AP,if there aren't anymore FT's to shoot.See Rule 9-1PENALTY3.