2 violations
 

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?

No.

Decide which one happened first.

Double Violation ???
 

Is there such a thing as a a double violation? Wait? Should I look this up in my rulebook, and casebook, first, or can I just ask the question? I sure hope that my question doesn't get me in trouble.

Sigh.

There.

Is.

No.

Such.

Thing.

As.

Two.

Unrelated.

Events.

Happening.

Simultaneously.

I'd go with the kicking violation unless it was obvious the 3 second violation was first.

Huh?
 

4
-
19
-
10
?

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

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.

Why not?

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

Reference (other that during FTs) please.

6-4-3. C

+1

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.

I prefer Tuesday Morning Quarterback (Gregg Easterbrook) who says the the human eye/brain cannot distinguish such infintesimal increments of time. So in real world application separate events can happen simultaneously. :cool:

Newton Who?

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.

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.

Say It Isn't So, Ethyl!!!
 

:eek::eek::eek:
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.

Too late, I have already panicked :eek:

If the choices are simultaneous violations and the AP arrow or decide which one came first, I expect most of us will still listen to Bob.

I agree. I have never had a simultaneous violation. Someones whistle was first. Just pointing out the book does say this could happen.

No, they should have ruled held ball. ;)

Actually, it's neither a jump ball or a held ball. It's a situation which is resolved by using the alternating possession arrow.

Thanks Billy Mac, you are a fine example of forward thinking and progress on this forum.