Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond
... cited the definitive case play that illustrates that we do not enforce both a IPF and Technical Foul on the same play.
|
Which case play definitively states exactly what to do when this situation occurs
AFTER a delay warning has already been given?
The Devil's advocate often gets confused.
When no warning has already been given, when a defensive player crosses the boundary and illegally contacts the inbounder we charge an intentional foul and
ALSO give a warning for delay of game.
That's two penalties for one single act.
Speaking as the Devil's advocate, when the exact same thing happens again two minutes later why would we not, again, give two penalties, an intentional foul (as stated by the rules), and a technical foul (as stated by the rules)?
Why not? Could an easy answer be by purpose and intent (absent a specific rule or interpretation)?
Or do we actually have a specific rule or interpretation that tells us exactly what to do, and not have to rely on purpose and intent?