Resumption of Play Issue

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

all of the above posts went through my head when I initially responded (in fact, I changed my post a couple of times before hitting "submit"). I came down on the side of a double violation.

I think the "ignore the second" is in place because the committee thinks it's unreasonable for someone in a lane space NOT to react to someone else moving in early -- it's similar to the "only the fake is penalized" reasoning.
In this play, there's no reason for the offensive player to react. So, I'm penalizing him/her, too.

I agree. In fact, if I remember, the rule use to be it was a double violation if B violated first followed by A. Isn't that correct?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by billyu2

I agree. In fact, if I remember, the rule use to be it was a double violation if B violated first followed by A. Isn't that correct?

Correct. This changed about six seasons ago to the current ruling.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Correct. This changed about six seasons ago to the current ruling.

Right...and that's where I got the "first one caused the second one" thinking.

Anyway, I am taking back my change of thinking on this and going back to what I said earlier. Nevada and Bob reconvinced me. Penalize both of them as it is not a situation of both players being in marked lane spaces.

Can't believe I forgot Rule #3 of this forum: Always listen to Bob!