2 violations

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by PP

Team A commits an "illegal kicking violation" , Trail official blows the whistle. At the exact same time the Lead official blows the whistle and calls three second violation on Team B. The two officials meet and determine that the violations occured at the same time. Referee rules a double violation, jump ball. The team with the alternating possession arrow gets the ball out of bounds. Are the officials correct?

Sigh.

There.

Is.

No.

Such.

Thing.

As.

Two.

Unrelated.

Events.

Happening.

Simultaneously.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by md longhorn

sigh.

There.

Is.

No.

Such.

Thing. . . .

4
-
19
-
10
?

[maven]

The rule book defines simultaneous violations. The considered advice of esteemed forum members is not to call them except during free throws. Pick one.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by maven

The rule book defines simultaneous violations. The considered advice of esteemed forum members is not to call them except during free throws. Pick one.

Reference (other that during FTs) please.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

reference (other that during fts) please.

6-4-3. C

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by OKREF

6-4-3. C

Ah -- thanks.

I guess I should read the rule book more.

So, the answer to the test question in the OP is apparently "yes" (unless they are testing "double violation" vs. "simultaneous violation")

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Ah -- thanks.

I guess I should read the rule book more.

So, the answer to the test question in the OP is apparently "yes" (unless they are testing "double violation" vs. "simultaneous violation")

Doing a quick search on the rule book app for the phrases double violation and simultaneous violation, it appears that the NFHS uses both phrases. Almost randomly.

Don't feel I learned anything, but it's interesting nonetheless.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I guess I should read the rule book more.

This session of the "Always Listen to Bob" Raving Admiration Society (ALBRAS) is temporarily recessed while we figure all this out. No, don't panic. There might be a reasonable explanation for it. He might have hit his head on something.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Freddy

4-19-10?

In the case of simultaneous fouls, you can have a foul on a shooter that is clearly after some other foul, but is still considered simultaneous because the act of shooting is not an instantaneous action, and has duration.

WRT the OP - and other instantaneous violations, I stick by my original answer. One of them happened first. Figure out which one it was.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Sigh.

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. Two. Unrelated. Events. Happening. Simultaneously.

Why not?

That being said, figure out make a decision as to which happened first and go with it.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by badnewsref

why not?

That being said, figure out make a decision as to which happened first and go with it.

+1

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why not?

So many ways to answer this....

I guess the simplest is that if two events are unrelated, then if you determine the time they occurred with infinite precision, it is completely impossible for them to have occurred at exactly the same moment in time. This was proven by Einstein in 1905.

If you introduce greater distances than those available during a basketball game, where the speed of light matters, you introduce new definitions of simultaneity as well as concepts like actual time, local time, and aethereal time... and if you introduce objects moving at much greater speed, you introduce apparent time - any of those require a broader definitions of "simultaneous".

But for the purposes of this... can we just say, "because Einstein said so" and move on?

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

So many ways to answer this....

I guess the simplest is that if two events are unrelated, then if you determine the time they occurred with infinite precision, it is completely impossible for them to have occurred at exactly the same moment in time. This was proven by Einstein in 1905.

If you introduce greater distances than those available during a basketball game, where the speed of light matters, you introduce new definitions of simultaneity as well as concepts like actual time, local time, and aethereal time... and if you introduce objects moving at much greater speed, you introduce apparent time - any of those require a broader definitions of "simultaneous".

But for the purposes of this... can we just say, "because Einstein said so" and move on?

The NFHS rule book disagrees with Newton and says an AP throw in occurs when there ia a simultaneous violation.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by OKREF

The NFHS rule book disagrees with Newton and says an AP throw in occurs when there ia a simultaneous violation.

Newton Who?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by OKREF

The NFHS rule book disagrees with Newton and says an AP throw in occurs when there ia a simultaneous violation.

He says Einstein and you quote Newton.

Simultaneous as mentioned in the rule book is a rulebook term and doesn't necessarily mean the actions occurred at exactly the same time -- for example, a simultaneous violation on a free throw.