Free throw violations by both teams, not simultaneous

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I am surprised how this thread has gone off the rails. The rules tell us exactly how to handle this play (See my previous post with the OP quoted.): The ball is put back into play via the AP Arrow. All this talk about repeated violations by one team or the other is not germane to the OP.

MTD, Sr.

Why would it not be germane to the OP ... it's IN the OP (paragraphs 4 and 5).

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by CoachJW

A1 shooting the 2nd of 2 free throws. B1, in a marked lane space, steps into the lane before the shot is released. A1's free throw does not contact the ring. B1's violation was not deemed to be disconcerting to the shooter.

I have posed this question to several officials this year and most say we would shoot the free throw again. Some have said AP, and others have said the A1 violation would put the ball out of bounds to team B, disregarding the B1 violation.

Now the game situation where you might see this. I would like to hear if it would persuade your ruling:

Team A is trailing by 2 points with 1 second on the clock. They are shooting the 2nd of 2 free throws. Therefore, a made free throw puts the ball out of bounds to team B, who would still be ahead by one point. Team A will instead be attempting to miss the free throw, grab the rebound, and score to tie or win the game. However, team B's coach (who has the lead) has instructed a player to step into the lane. A's shooter misses off the rim once, but B1 violated, so we shoot it again. B1 violates again, and A's shooter misses off the rim again. Finally, B1 violates again, and A's shooter throws up an airball.

I first heard of this strategy (from team B's perspective) reading some clinic notes from the late, great Don Meyer, and it got me wondering what would actually happen. Thanks for your help.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Why would it not be germane to the OP ... it's IN the OP (paragraphs 4 and 5).

I highlighted the Original Situation in this thread in red. And I referenced the appropriate NFHS Rules (Post #5 in the Thread) which apply to the Original Situation.

The OP goes off the rails by positing the Original Situation as a game strategy (Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 in the OP) when the Rules will not allow it to go any further than an AP Throw-in. This is where the Thread went off of the rails and therefore not germane to the Origninal Situation.

MTD, Sr.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I highlighted the Original Situation in this thread in red. And I referenced the appropriate NFHS Rules (Post #5 in the Thread) which apply to the Original Situation.

The OP goes off the rails by positing the Original Situation as a game strategy (Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 in the OP) when the Rules will not allow it to go any further than an AP Throw-in. This is where the Thread went off of the rails and therefore not germane to the Origninal Situation.

MTD, Sr.

I see... so because some of us responded to paragraphs 3-5, and you, personally, decided paragraphs 3-5 were not "germane" to paragraphs 1-2, the rest of us have somehow transgressed...

Really?