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.

Yeah, but if the defense really did move first in the switching process, then the partner is right. Penalize the first only. If they're truly simultaneous, then double violation.

Chuck

While it seems that SMcQueen is a bit confused and I believe incorrect in most of his post, the part that I have quoted above is entirely correct. He is saying that if the shot has fallen short and is below the ring level when B1 enters the lane, then A1 violated first and that the correct call is to only charge A1 with a violation and give the ball OOB to Team B. This is because the free throw ended before B1 entered the lane, and therefore, B1 cannot commit a violation after the ball is already dead.
JR's quote has thus been shown to be incorrect as it does matter where the ball is when B1 enters the lane. A truly alert official must know the ball's location when B1 steps into the lane in order to determine which player violated first.
Although, it is true that most officials, that I see, do not call this the correct way.

Sigh! Kinda left out the key sentence,didn't you,Nevada?That's awful creative editing on your part,just to try and prove that my statement was wrong.

Now,read the WHOLE thing again.The ball is above the rim most of the distance the FT has to travel to reach the backboard or rim.It is a violation for B1 to step in before the ball hits the backboard or rim,or it is certain that it will be no good.I didn't mention the ball being below the rim at all in my statement,so you can throw that part of the equation out.The statement that I made was therefore correct,and I stand by it.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 21st, 2003 at 03:08 AM]

Hey, I was only being nitpicky with you, in the same way you were nitpicking the words of ScottParks. :) I thought that you would adopt the same attitude that he did when you pointed out that his choice of words was not the best.
Nothing vindictive was intended. IMHO you are correct on this board far more than you are mistaken.

If only that were true on the court! :p

Chuck

[Edited by ChuckElias on Jan 21st, 2003 at 08:43 AM]

Is being correct 53% of the time on the court considered far more?:confused:If it does,then you're wrong too,BOSOXBOY!

PS- http://www.gifs.net/animate/newman.gif

No, but I would've taken that percentage last night. Sigh. :(

Bullpucky,Chucky!

You may have missed a call or two.Everybody does.You're too good an official to have missed any more than that.Never beat yourself up when the ballplayers are going gonzo on ya(which is probably what happened).When you get get into games like that,you just keep the animals under control-that's all.

Now,repeat after me- "I'm good enough,I'm smart enough,and...." :D

Brownpop time!!! Brownpop time!!! BoSox boy buys the first round!!!

You know how we always say "Count the players". . .? :(

oopsie! Now ya gotta spill the beans...wha happened???
It will be theropu...thrapu...therapeud...ahhh... it will
help. Think of us as a big bunch of Dr Phils! Without the
expertise...or the compassion...or the ratings....group hug!

You know how we always say "sh*t happens"?

What makes you think that you're any different than me,or any other official? "Whoop-de-damn-do",in the words of that immortal philosopher-Derek Coleman.It's nice to try to be perfect,but you ain't gonna make it,and neither is any other official on this planet.Doesn't stop us from trying,though.That's the main thing. JMO,Chuck.

I know I'm not perfect, but this was really totally my fault and only happened b/c I made another mistake previous to it. Sigh.

A1 is dribbling upcourt. As A1 steps over midcourt, he brings his non-dribbling hand up towards the ball to catch the ball and then pass. Well, he changes his mind at the last instant, and continues his dribble. I, however, expected him to end the dribble and blew the whistle, intending to call a double dribble. Screw-up #1.

Ok, ok. Inadvertant whistle. Horn sounds. My bad, everybody. Team B sub runs on. Sorry. Blue ball. Trying to hide my screw-up #1, I quickly hand the ball to A1 who inbounds it, when half the gym starts yelling "They've got six!!" Screw-up #2.

My partner and I felt we had no choice but to issue the T. If we hadn't, we would have just compounded the situation into something even worse! The ONLY saving grace is that my mistake didn't affect the outcome of the game. I do not generally curse, but our post-game evaluation was not printable.

The Team B coach proved himself to be a class act. He asked me about whether the sub had been waved in (he had been), but then let it go. After the game, I saw him on the way out of the locker room and told him exactly what I've just written. He accepted it graciously. It probably helped that his team won the game, but he still could've been a jerk about it.

Chuck

Chuck,we're imperfect people trying to do a perfect job.You know you screwed up.Your partner should know that he screwed up just as bad,too,by not helping out.That one's just as much his fault as yours.You learn from it,and hopefully it doesn't happen again.

One screw-up does not a bad official make.If it did,there'd be nobody left to do the games.There isn't a GOOD official in any sport that isn't bothered when they miss something or make a mistake.There isn't any official in any sport that doesn't miss something or make a mistake occasionally.Even the great ones!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 21st, 2003 at 01:08 PM]

Not clear why you had no choice but to issue a T Chuck. Obviously, if ball is live with 6 on the court, it is normally a T. But if you made it live too quickly, because B1 had just legally entered court and you gave B2 no chance to get off, you should have a quick whistle, give B a chance to make it right, and continue on. I think this is the flipside of your inadvertent whistle - and inadvertent live ball :)

It is not proper to T up B in this situation. Perhaps you meant to say that you shouldn't have T'd them up, but that isn't clear from my reading of your post.

Hawks:

If the ball is live w/ six on the court we have to issue a T. I don't have my rules book w/ today to give citation but it is clearly written. Unfortunately as Chuck already feels bad enough about it is our preventative officiating that keeps this from happening. "Sorry coach, we screwed up but we have to T you for having to many on the court" If we do not issue a T immediately upon discovering this the other coach no has a legit b*tch for us allowing the other team to play w/ an advantage.

Say it with me everyone . . .
http://a1055.g.akamai.net/f/1055/140...00/1250773.gif

(Hey - it worked for him:)
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/02/pics/02hsmalley2.jpg

I understand the rule, and it is very clear. However, it is not clear to me that it needs to be enforced here. Lets take the extreme. Lead is administering a baseline throw-in while trail is bringing in subs. Lead mistakenly gives the ball to A1 right when B1 first steps on the court. You have a T for this? To me, that is six players on the court, and a live ball, but completely the fault of the ref. Seems to me you can use some elasticity to get this one right.

This is far different from B subbing in 3, having 2 leave, and you making the ball live without counting (arguably a game management issue, but you are justified in giving the T here). The case I am referring to is where you make the ball live without allowing B to complete a normal substitution. It is ridiculous to say that the rules require you to now give a T to B and give A two FTs.

You are allowed to make things right in cases like this and this is clearly one where you should do so - you made the error. Admit it and then restart the game.

Hawks:

Totally agree w/ this rationale. Here is an easy solution to prevent the problem that not enough officals utilize IMO. In your pregame (yes I think you should have one even if you have worked together 5000 years) Remind each other that the administering official WILL NOT put the ball in play while I have my hand in the air and am bringing in subs. When I have counted the 10 players I will drop the stop clock signal and now put ball in play. If you are the official bringing in subs maintain as much eye contact w/ your partner (administering official) as possible and if you see that he/she is even thinking about putting the ball in play you are getting on your whistle to get his attention. IMO sub violations such as this happen due to a lack of concentration on our part. Unfortunately sometimes a T gets called on you guys for our error. Too bad there is not a way you all could call a T on us once in a while.... wait a minute there would be none of us refs left ;)

Like I said IMO this should not happen if both officials heads are in the game and good preventative officiating as well as a pregame should keep this from happening. The T is meant for the player who runs onto the court w/out being beckoned IMO.