How do you emphasize a rule that doesn't exist?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BigCat

The first sentence of the relevant part set forth above says contact more than incidental is a personal foul. The third sentence says technical foul. I think it is clear they meant to say contact after the shot is missed is technical. (they could just be knuckleheads)

And that is wrong.

Originally Posted by BigCat

The POE is wrong because there is no rule which says crossing FT line is a violation. However, if we accept that there is going to be such a rule, the way Bob has amended the POE would be correct and a true statement. Crossing the line and making more than incidental contact while FT in air/has chance to go in is personal foul. Contact after shot is clearly not successful is ignored unless intentional or flagrant(technical).

The red statement is correct.
But that isn't what it said. It said that contact after the ball is dead is a technical if it isn't incidental. It takes more than not being incidental, as you properly stated, to become a technical.

The statement can't be made right by changing just one or two words. It is wrong in too many ways. It was just published without thinking.