Shooting foul committed, then simultaneous BI/GT
 

Would we still shoot the free throws for the shooting foul? I think the intent of the rules should/would be yes, but I can't find any rules backing for my opinion.

Yep.

9.11.2 Sit E

TJ - That doesn't address simultaneous, though. Only by A or B. I know this was brought up back in '07 on the forum, but no consensus was ever given that I could find in searching.

Ah... missed that.

Well, wipe the bucket and shoot the free throws. Resume play with the last throw.

Why would it be different? Under what circumstance would we not shoot free throws for a shooting foul?

Can you give an example of when this might occur as well as the probability of this ever happening?

Plus I second what Adam says. Why would we NOT shoot the FT's?

I agree...extremely unlikely to occur. But, depending on how you resolve the simultaneous violation would affect the number of FT. You'd always have FTs as the penalty for a foul is not set aside due to an unrelated violation.

So, assuming it happens, one violation includes the penalty of awarding the basket while the other cancels the basket. That is the real dilemma regardless of whether their is a foul or not. Once you resolve that, the answer to the FT question takes care of itself.

Now, how to resolved the simultaneous BI/GT... Hmmm. That is a conundrum if there ever was one. Feels like an AP situation and thus no basket awarded followed by 2 FTs. But I wouldn't bet much on that.

Because the books do a poor job of saying we do in this case. There are simply the two opposing rules that state: A) an unsuccessful try where the shooter is fouled results in FT's, and B) simultaneous BI or GT violations result in going to the arrow (with no listed exceptions).

Thank you for the discussion.

That really isn't as big of a deal as you seem to think. ALL the rules are written with the assumption that there are no other issues. That is to say that the simultaneous BI/GT violation rule is under the assumption that there is nothing else to consider...there was no foul. You go to the AP because there is nothing else to determine who should get the ball. If there is something else to determine what to do next, you never go to the AP. It is the same thing as what occurs on simultaneous FT violations on the first of 2 shots. The rule says to to the AP on simultaneous FT violations but we continue with the 2nd shot.

on the test i took today

I don't think it's a big deal, per se, just posing the question for discussion. And regarding all other situations where the arrow would be used, there are exceptions, notes, and/or case plays that delineate when there are remaining FT's to be shot that we are to shoot those FT's - at least that I can find - (including, and for example, on simultaneous FT violations).

Most of them are cases where the situations are not unlikely. The example you give regarding sim. FT violations, when it occurs, will often involve the possibility of more shots.

It isn't difficult to create an intersection of two rules that rare intersect to cause an interesting conundrum.

The rulesmakers could enumerate all of the permutations of situations that could possibly occur but such a book would be the size of the OED and no one would ever be able to read it all. Instead, principles and concepts are usually sufficient with a few cases to demonstrate the concepts.

That is what we have here. A rules that says to go the AP on sim. BI/GT (which is extremely unlikely) and another about the penalty for a foul. The combination of the two probably happens once in 100 years.....and is not worth the ink to print a case about it. The general concept that fouls are always penalized (excepting the end of an unwinnable game situation) is all you need to know to realize you shoot the FTs. It doesn't matter how you get there or what else happens. A shooting foul is a shooting foul and FTs will be shot.

That's my issue, Camron - the group that is doing the "printing" created a part 1 test question about it. I think your last sentence is what's at the heart of the issue here, though.