Originally Posted by JoakimBL
I'm guessing my argument is that exactly because of the situation you describe you have to make the initial call in such a way that there cannot be a dispute over whether or not the call was made "promptly" and not just after it was observed to go in the basket and it would suit the calling player to call a fault.
To be clear, I think it's a bad rule change all together, but there is no need to make it worse by allowing a call to stand, just because someone claims they called it properly. I'm not saying your interpretation is not valid, just that it isn't explicitly stated in the rule, so it's just your interpretation
It also is not (and has never been) explicitly stated in the rules that the outcome of the shot means anything in terms of the validity of the call. I know that's what the whole 3 second thing was intended to do when it was there, but it seems to me that removing the exact time element from the rule is intended to relax the timing required to make a call. Therefore, whether the player made the initial unheard call at all is irrelevant to whether or not calling the violation again so that it can be heard is valid.
Unless the player making the call is waiting for maximum effect and allowing the throwing player to remove his mark and move away from the position before making (or re-iterating) the call, I don't think promptness is at issue.
All that said, I agree that the changes to this rule are poorly thought out. Both the removal of the 3-second window and the removal of the need for a second in the case of first offense of the round do more to cloud and complicate the application of the rules than to simplify and streamline them.