Simultaneous violation? (Video)

[jeremy341a]

Is this a simultaneous violation or do you feel one of them violated first?

)

[JRutledge]

You cannot have simultaneous violations on the lane line. The first one is considered to cause the second one. If a player came from behind the circle or 3 point line or the shooter missed the rim, then you could have a simultaneous violation. But not in this case.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Simultaneous

[Adam]

Defense violates first, IMO, by a split second. Either way, I'm not sure they administered it correctly. If it was the defense, there should be another shot. If it was ruled simultaneous, they should have informed the table they would be using the arrow.

[Indianaref]

Looks very close to being simultaneous. Go to arrow.

Defense moved leg in causing white jersey player to also violate. Get the first one.

[stick]

From the video angle the black jersey team violated first. Should be another shot for white--unless of course he made the ft. I suppose it's possible but it would be tough to have a simultaneous lane violation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You cannot have simultaneous violations on the lane line.

Disagree. Possible, but not probable.

[JetMetFan]

If I had to call one as opposed to the other I would've called it on the defense, though I could live with a simultaneous (which is possible). It appears the crew called it on the offense.

[Camron Rust]

def was in first

[ballgame99]

Looks like th T had a violation on defense (sideways fist), but that's not even his call is it? He should be looking across should he not?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

Looks like th T had a violation on defense (sideways fist), but that's not even his call is it? He should be looking across should he not?

There is no his call, her call. If you see something that needs to be called you call it. WE have primary coverage areas but by no means are we NOT allowed to call outside our primary responsibility.

[BryanV21]

I can't get to my rule book right now, but I know we talked about something like this before involving the FT shooter missing the rim afterwards. So, if we assume the defender was the first to violate, tell me if I remember this right...

1. Defender in a marked lane space violates, leading to a delayed violation.

2. Offensive player in a marked lane space violates, but it is ignored as he/she was drawn to violate due to the defense.

3. FT shooter misses rim, which is also a violation.

4. Due to the defender violating first, the offensive player's violation being ignored, and the FT shooter missing the rim, we have a double violation (that term may not be right, but stay with me... LOL) therefore we go to the AP arrow to see who gets a throw-in along the end line.

Now... in this case... since the FT touched the rim before the miss, we only penalize the defender for a lane violation, meaning the player gets another FT.

[deecee]

If the defense violates and disconcerts then missing the rim is NOT a violation that would prevent the shooter from getting another attempt.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

If the defense violates and disconcerts then missing the rim is NOT a violation that would prevent the shooter from getting another attempt.

If the defense violates prior to the release of the shot, I'm going with disconcertion and only penalizing the defense. If the defense violations after the release, I'm going with the simultaneous violation.