Multiple free throw violations

[rfp]

From the 2012-13 NFHS Rule Interpretations:

SITUATION 1: While A1's free throw is in flight, B1, in a marked lane space, enters the lane. A1's free throw hits the ring and bounces straight up and hits a wire over the basket or hits the ring and goes over the backboard. RULING: The official should sound the whistle and call a violation on B1. A1 is given a substitute free throw. (9-1-4 Penalty 2b)

The ruling seems counter to Rule 9-1 Penalty 4b: "If there is a violation first by the free-thrower's opponent followed by the free thrower or a teammate: If the second violation is by the free thrower or a teammate behind the free-throw line extended and the three-point line, both violations are penalized, as in penalty item (3)."

It also seems counter to case book play 9.1.3 Situation H where B1 enters the lane early followed by free throw shooter A1 stepping on the line. In that case, the ruling is a double violation and go to the arrow.

What's the basis for this ruling?

[APG]

A1 hasn't committed a FT violation in the case play.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by apg

a1 hasn't committed a ft violation in the case play.

+1

That is the point of this case, that by causing the ball to strike the rim, the shooter has not violated.

[tref]

I guess the guy that lets air out of every ball, for every game, didnt work this contest.

[rfp]

Well that's not obvious! Thanks!

[deecee]

Originally Posted by rfp

Well that's not obvious! Thanks!

What is not obvious? How did A1 violate? An OOB and player violation on FT's are 2 different things.

[McMac]

You can look at the ball hitting the wire just like the ball missing the shot (but hitting the rim) or going over the backboard, it is a missed FT. The shooter did not violate the provisions of the FT. So the only FT violation is on B, A gets the FT to shoot again.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by deecee

What is not obvious? How did A1 violate? An OOB and player violation on FT's are 2 different things.

i believe that is sarcasm. if not, it should be

[deecee]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

i believe that is sarcasm. if not, it should be

Let's say its not sarcasm, what's wrong with the statement?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

Let's say its not sarcasm, what's wrong with the statement?

Why don't you enlighten us?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Adam

Why don't you enlighten us?

The penalties are different. A player committing a violation (ie. stepping in the lane early, failing to hit the rim on the shot) versus say the shot being missed and bouncing over the backboard have different penalties. Therefore they cannot be the same. But now that I think about it I was looking at it from a defensive versus offensive offender. Been off the court for too long .

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

The penalties are different. A player committing a violation (ie. stepping in the lane early, failing to hit the rim on the shot) versus say the shot being missed and bouncing over the backboard have different penalties. Therefore they cannot be the same. But now that I think about it I was looking at it from a defensive versus offensive offender. Been off the court for too long .

The difference may seem obvious to us, but on the surface, the shooter causing the ball to go OOB is only slightly different than missing the rim.

The difference is fundamental, but I wouldn't mock someone for not finding it obvious.

[deecee]

Adam, you are right and I wasn't intending on mocking I w aas responding to his statement that it was obvious. I do not know his level of expertise nor did i make an assumption as to what it may be.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

Adam, you are right and I wasn't intending on mocking I w aas responding to his statement that it was obvious. I do not know his level of expertise nor did i make an assumption as to what it may be.

Fair enough, I'll turn off the snark.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by Adam

Why don't you enlighten us?

i was talking about rfp's comment. so defensive lol