Where is the nearest spot?

Rick Durkee

The ball is at the disposal of A1 for the second of two free throws. B1 steps into the lane, and then A4, who is not occupying a lane space, steps below the free throw line extended. When A4 committed his violation, he was near the sideline. As prescribed in 9-1-Penalties 3 and 4b, officials cancel the goal and administer an "altenating-possesion throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the simultaneous violation occurred." Where is the nearest spot?

Nevadaref

If the AP arrow favors Team A, then the ball is awarded OOB nearest to where B1 violated. That would be on the end line at the intersection with the side of the FT lane line.
If the AP arrow favors Team B, then the ball is awarded OOB nearest to where A4 violated. That would be over on the sideline.

There was an interp a few years back that said to do it this way with simultaneous fouls. It may even have made it into the case book, but with the introduction of POI that ruling would change to the ball location. I'll look up the old references and post them.

M&M Guy

Rick Durkee wrote
Where is the nearest spot?

In the gym?

Ok, then how about along the endline, approximately in-between the 2 violations?

Nevadaref

Please note that the first two rulings are not current. The final case play is the current NFHS ruling.

2002-03 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS

SITUATION 12: B1 fouls A1 near the division line. At approximately the same time, A2 fouls B2 in the lane near Team A's basket. The alternating-possession arrow is pointed toward Team A. RULING: This is a simultaneous personal foul. B1 and A2 are charged with personal fouls. The ball shall be put back in play with an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A on the sideline nearest B1's foul. COMMENT: Since the fouls occurred at two different locations on the floor, the spot for the throw-in is determined by the foul of the team not entitled to the alternating-possession throw-in. Example: Team A has the arrow; throw-in administered at the spot closest to Team B's foul. (4-19-9; 6-3-3g)

2003-04 NFHS Case Book
SIMULTANEOUS FOUL
*4.19.9 SITUATION: B1 fouls A1 near the division line. At approximately the same time, A2 fouls B2 in the lane near Team A's basket. The alternating-possession arrow is pointed toward Team A. RULING: This is a simultaneous personal foul. B1 and A2 are charged with personal fouls. The ball shall be put back in play with an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A on the sideline nearest B1's foul. (6-3-3g; 7-5-9 Note)

With the 2005-06 Case Book this play was renumbered and the ruling altered due to the introduction of POI to the NFHS game. In 2007-08 Case Book the rule reference was renumbered. The current case play now reads:

SIMULTANEOUS FOUL
4.19.10 SITUATION: B1 fouls dribbling A1 near the division line. At approximately the same time, A2 fouls B2 in the lane near Team A's basket. RULING: This is a simultaneous personal foul. B1 and A2 are charged with personal fouls. The ball shall be put back in play at the point of interruption. Team A is awarded a throw-in on the sideline nearest to where the ball was located when the fouls occurred. (7-5-3b; 4-36)

Since the POI rule (4-36) does not include double or simultaneous violations, it should still be correct to apply the logic and principle expressed by the original NFHS play ruling for a simultaneous foul when determining the location for the AP throw-in.

M&M Guy

Nevadaref wrote
Since the POI rule (4-36) does not include double or simultaneous violations, it should still be correct to apply the logic and principle expressed by the original NFHS play ruling for a simultaneous foul when determining the location for the AP throw-in.

While I appreciate the logic, I'm not entirely convinced simultaneous violations and fouls should be treated alike. If so, why wouldn't you also go to POI on a simultaneous violation?

Nevadaref

I'm not saying that simultaneous violations and fouls should be treated alike today. I'm only saying that when one must determine the throw-in spot after going to the arrow for a simultaneous violation that the old ruling for the play that involved simultaneous fouls told us how to do it. That part of the ruling should still be good.

bigdog5142

Nevadaref wrote
Since the POI rule (4-36) does not include double or simultaneous violations, it should still be correct to apply the logic and principle expressed by the original NFHS play ruling for a simultaneous foul when determining the location for the AP throw-in.

So are you saying that you use POI to restart play after a double lane violation? It's an automatic OP throw-in. I'm still unclear as to the spot of the throw-in, however.

Rick Durkee

Nevadaref wrote
Please note that the first two rulings are not current. The final case play is the current NFHS ruling.

2002-03 NFHS BASKETBALL RULES INTERPRETATIONS

SITUATION 12: B1 fouls A1 near the division line. At approximately the same time, A2 fouls B2 in the lane near Team A's basket. The alternating-possession arrow is pointed toward Team A. RULING: This is a simultaneous personal foul. B1 and A2 are charged with personal fouls. The ball shall be put back in play with an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A on the sideline nearest B1's foul. COMMENT: Since the fouls occurred at two different locations on the floor, the spot for the throw-in is determined by the foul of the team not entitled to the alternating-possession throw-in. Example: Team A has the arrow; throw-in administered at the spot closest to Team B's foul. (4-19-9; 6-3-3g)

2003-04 NFHS Case Book
SIMULTANEOUS FOUL
*4.19.9 SITUATION: B1 fouls A1 near the division line. At approximately the same time, A2 fouls B2 in the lane near Team A's basket. The alternating-possession arrow is pointed toward Team A. RULING: This is a simultaneous personal foul. B1 and A2 are charged with personal fouls. The ball shall be put back in play with an alternating-possession throw-in for Team A on the sideline nearest B1's foul. (6-3-3g; 7-5-9 Note)

With the 2005-06 Case Book this play was renumbered and the ruling altered due to the introduction of POI to the NFHS game. In 2007-08 Case Book the rule reference was renumbered. The current case play now reads:

SIMULTANEOUS FOUL
4.19.10 SITUATION: B1 fouls dribbling A1 near the division line. At approximately the same time, A2 fouls B2 in the lane near Team A's basket. RULING: This is a simultaneous personal foul. B1 and A2 are charged with personal fouls. The ball shall be put back in play at the point of interruption. Team A is awarded a throw-in on the sideline nearest to where the ball was located when the fouls occurred. (7-5-3b; 4-36)

Since the POI rule (4-36) does not include double or simultaneous violations, it should still be correct to apply the logic and principle expressed by the original NFHS play ruling for a simultaneous foul when determining the location for the AP throw-in.

Regardless of how the thread continues from here, thank you very much for taking the time to make two posts and include the information in this one.

bigdog5142

You answered my question before I asked it...🙂

Rick Durkee

Rick Durkee wrote
The ball is at the disposal of A1 for the second of two free throws. B1 steps into the lane, and then A4, who is not occupying a lane space, steps below the free throw line extended. When A4 committed his violation, he was near the sideline. As prescribed in 9-1-Penalties 3 and 4b, officials cancel the goal and administer an "altenating-possesion throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest to where the simultaneous violation occurred." Where is the nearest spot?

While looking for another rule I found 6-4-3g. 6-4-3, when compbined with part "g," says, "Alternating-possession throw-ins shall be from the out of bounds spot nearest to where the ball was located. An alternating-possession throw-in shall result when:...Simultaneous floor or free throw violations occur."

This would solve the problem from the original post, but it seems to contradict the language of 9-1 Penalties 3 and 4. Is it indeed a contradiction, or am I missing something? If it is a contradiction, is there some way to resolve it?

Nevadaref

Rick Durkee wrote
While looking for another rule I found 6-4-3g. 6-4-3, when compbined with part "g," says, "Alternating-possession throw-ins shall be from the out of bounds spot nearest to where the ball was located. An alternating-possession throw-in shall result when:...Simultaneous floor or free throw violations occur."

This would solve the problem from the original post, but it seems to contradict the language of 9-1 Penalties 3 and 4. Is it indeed a contradiction, or am I missing something? If it is a contradiction, is there some way to resolve it?

Nice work, Rick.
It seems that there is a contradiction in the two rules and that the NFHS needs to address this by changing one of them.

In the meantime, I would suggest that you forget everything that I wrote above and go with the AP rule in the book. I say this because the books do not currently provide a method to determine where a simultaneous violation occurred. So award the throw-in to the team entitled to such by the AP arrow from the intersection of the end line and one of the FT lane lines, since the ball was in the FT semi-circle.