Multiple free throw violations (part 2)

[rfp]

A-1 shooting free-throw.
B-1 disconcerts.
A-1 violates.
Ball goes in.

9-1 Penalty 4c says if free thrower violation follows disconcertion, shoot again. But since ball went in, seems like you'd not be penalizing the disconcertion if you make the thrower shoot again. If you hold your whistle due to the ball going in after the disconcertion, you're ignoring A-1's violation.

Don't count the basket due to the violation on A-1 but shoot again due to the disconcertion?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rfp

A-1 shooting free-throw.
B-1 disconcerts.
A-1 violates.
Ball goes in.

9-1 Penalty 4c says if free thrower violation follows disconcertion, shoot again. But since ball went in, seems like you'd not be penalizing the disconcertion if you make the thrower shoot again. If you hold your whistle due to the ball going in after the disconcertion, you're ignoring A-1's violation.

Don't count the basket due to the violation on A-1 but shoot again due to the disconcertion?

It happened in that order? How did A1 violate?

Anyway, enforce the disconcertion only and award a re-throw.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It happened in that order? How did A1 violate?

Anyway, enforce the disconcertion only and award a re-throw.

Agreed...

And it is most certainly NOT a double violation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It happened in that order? How did A1 violate?

Missed the ring? Stepped on the line?

[rfp]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It happened in that order? How did A1 violate?

Anyway, enforce the disconcertion only and award a re-throw.

Yes, that's the order. I don't think it matters whether A-1 stepped on the line or shot an airball, but that's the violation.

So the fact that the ball went in doesn't matter?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rfp

So the fact that the ball went in doesn't matter?

I believe that if the shooter violates, followed by the ball going in the basket, that the basket will never count.

I usually subscribe to the idea of never saying never, and never saying always, but I think that I can always say never here.

Maybe some Forum members much wiser than me can come up with some exceptions.

[Adam]

The only way this happens is if A1 steps on the line. I see no possible way for the disconcertion to actually cause that, so I've got no problem making A1 reshoot.

[PG_Ref]

Caseplay 9.1.3 Situation H: While A1 is attempting a final free throw, (a) B1 enters the lane too soon followed by A2, both of whom are in marked lane spaces; or (b) B1, in a marked lane space enters the lane too soon, then shooter A1 steps on the free-throw line while releaseing the throw. RULING: In (a), the violation by A2 is ignored and, if the try is successful, the goal shall count and the violation by B1, shall be ignored. If the try is unsuccessful, the ball shall become dead when the free throw ends and a substitute free throw shall be attempted by A1 under the same conditions as those for the original free throw. In (b), a double violation is called and the ball is put in play using the alternating-possession procedure.
COMMENT: Anytime the defense violates first, followed by a violation by the free throw shooter, the officials should consider the possibility of disconcertion. (9-1 Penalty) ... So yes, if the disconcertion caused the violation.

[Adam]

There you go. Double violation. Go to POI.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Missed the ring? Stepped on the line?

Originally Posted by rfp

Yes, that's the order. I don't think it matters whether A-1 stepped on the line or shot an airball, but that's the violation.

So the fact that the ball went in doesn't matter?

If A1 "shot an airball" but "the ball went in" then we have bigger issues than deciding on the correct FT enforcement.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If A1 "shot an airball" but "the ball went in" then we have bigger issues than deciding on the correct FT enforcement.

lol....

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If A1 "shot an airball" but "the ball went in" then we have bigger issues than deciding on the correct FT enforcement.

"Missed the ring" means nothing but net. Didn't you ever play the free throw version of HORSE?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

There you go. Double violation. Go to POI.

With disconcertion?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Adam

There you go. Double violation. Go to POI.

FED 9-1 PENALTY 4c. If a violation by a free thrower follows disconcertion by an opponent, a substitute free throw shall be awarded.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

It is most certainly not a double violation.

Originally Posted by Adam

Double violation.

Originally Posted by bob jerkins

FED 9-1 PENALTY 4c. If a violation by a free thrower follows disconcert ion by an opponent, a substitute free throw shall be awarded.

So it's still considered a double violation, but with a different penalty than the normal, average, "garden variety", double violation? Interesting. I never thought of it in that manner. I've been "schooled".