[just another ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I used the word purposely to describe the action, not whether the player had knowledge of whether the ball was dead.

I've never seen a dunk that wasn't done purposely.

My point is, if you use the theory that you can "go back" and issue the T retroactively, you then must use all of the appropriate rules and penalize everything accordingly. And I assume you'll have fun explaining to to B's coach why they now have 2 T's, since the dunk happened during a dead ball.

I do not believe it is the intent of this rule to penalize a player who could not be reasonably expected to know the ball is dead. This would apply in this case, or if there was excessive noise making it hard to hear the whistle, or anything in between.

7.5.2 Sit B covers the play in question exactly. The officials screwed up and allowed the wrong team to inbound the ball, so there is nothing that can be done once the throw-in is completed. It would be nice to find some way to mitigate the officials' screw up and go back in time to penalize someone else, but I have yet to see anyone post a rule or case that allows us to go back in time and penalize an act from a previous play. Once the throw-in is completed, the action that warranted the T was a previous play.

7.5.2 B deals with determining the throw-in spot.

Granted, this may be an extreme example, but let's say you called a foul against team A with a couple of seconds left that put team B up 1 after the FT's. As the ball is being inbounded, team A's coach says something to you in Italian right before A1 brings the ball up and launches a shot that goes in at the buzzer. As you count the basket, the scorekeeper (timer?) tells you that the coach just called your mother many nasty names in Italian. Obviously unsporting, but you didn't get it called in time. So you decide to retroactively call the T. Would you wipe out the basket for A, since the action that warranted the T happened before the basket, thus making the entire play a dead ball situation? Since that leaves team B up 1, the game is now over with team B winning?

You're right. That is an extreme example.

Proposed rule: If a technical foul requires a translator, it shall not be called.