I was obviously not talking about intentional or flagrant acts and neither was Camron. I also know the rule, and knew it before you posted those citations.

We are talking strictly about the IPF that is called b/c of contact to a thrower-in outside the boundary line. Bob stated that if there had already been a warning then it should be a Tech and a dead ball as soon as said team reaches across the boundary line before making contact with the thrower-in. My point is that means we would never have the IPF for THAT PLAY because the ball would always become dead before contact.

Intentional Foul Defined ...
 

Whenever a ball becomes dead before illegal contact, we must ignore such contact unless it's deemed flagrant, or intentional, illegal contact, and either must be charged if it occurs.

Would one ignore flagrant illegal contact after such play?

Of course not.

Then why would one ignore contact that, by rule and interpretation (see citations above), is clearly defined (by rule below) as an intentional foul (which can be technical)?

An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to: Contact with a thrower-in ...

Note: Aside from me being the the Devil's advocate, I'm not in favor of "Double Jeopardy" here, but I like the harsher penalty (best shooter, ball halfway up the court) for the technical foul rather than the intentional foul.

I agree with Camron Rust that one must view the entire situation as a "single act" to best rule on this situation, I just wish that rules and interpretations would cover this situation.

Being the Devil's advocate is a tough, dirty, thankless (and nonprofitable) job, but somebody has to do it.

We already know the rule. Again, the discussion I'm in and you quoted concerns Camron's preference, "True. I actually like the rationale that the ball would be dead the moment the line is crossed, but that isn't the approved interpretation. :/ ", which he stated after already acknowledging the rule, "I agree. IPF for the entire single act."

We are well aware that dead ball contact that is deemed flagrant or intentional would be a technical foul.

Want to make it simpler, do like NCAA-Men's and remove the infraction for simply reaching across the boundary line. Then we can call a T for contacting the ball and an IPF for contacting the thrower-in.

Team Had Already Been Officially Warned For A Delay Of Game ...
 

I would prefer (but have no interpretation backing) the harsher penalty (best shooter, ball halfway up the court) technical foul for this situation, harsher because the team had already been officially warned for a delay of game.

Can we all agree that we would not enforce "Double Jeopardy" under any circumstance? Do we have any rule citation, or interpretation citation, backing one for cutting the baby in two, à la Solomon (not a great metaphor, but close)?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Qqv3cQ0vml...lomon+baby.JPG

Didn't you already cite the pertinent case plays that answer your original post? Has anyone remotely suggested issuing a IPF and Technical Foul for the singular infraction?

Order Of Occurrence ...
 

Just me, the Devil's advocate, in question form (as one of three choices), no rule that states not to (in order of occurrence), but I would hesitate (using common sense) to do it in a real game.

I'm confused. You asked the question about double jeopardy. Then you cited the definitive case play that illustrates that we do not enforce both a IPF and Technical Foul on the same play.

Maybe confusion is your goal :confused:

After A Warning ...
 

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.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.U...=0&w=192&h=168

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?

10.4.10 Situation A Comment.

Are you posting stuff that you're not even reading all the way through?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Nice Citation ...
 

10.4.10 SITUATION A: After a field goal, A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in. Thrower A1 holds the ball: (a) B2 crosses the boundary line and fouls A1; RULING: It is an intentional personal foul in (a). In (a), such a contact foul with the thrower during a throw-in shall be considered intentional, or if it is violent, it should be ruled flagrant. COMMENT: Either act is a foul and it should be ruled as such whenever it occurs during a game without regard to time or score or whether the team had or had not been warned for a delay-of-game situation.

Bingo. Thanks Raymond. Thanks for patiently hanging in there. Nice citation. That's what I was looking for, and it was right under my nose all the time. I obviously hadn't paid much attention to the wording (in red above) in the comment, but I wasn't the only one (twenty-four posts to get the correctly cited answer, your answer), just the most persistent.

Intentional personal foul, A1 shoots two free throws, Team A's ball at spot nearest foul (10.4.10 SITUATION A Comment).

Nice thread. I learned something, not based on common sense (purpose and intent), but based on a specific (and very clear) interpretation.

Thanks.

For Educational Purposes ...
 

Pop Quiz: If Team A originally was allowed to "run the endline" (let's say it was after a successful field goal), will "run the endline" carryover after the intentional foul, or will it be a designated spot?

Who wants to win a candy cane?

It's becomes a designated spot throw-in.

Not A Common Foul ...
 

… because an intentional foul is not a common foul.

A team retains this privilege if the scoring team commits a violation
or common foul (before the throw-in ends and before the bonus rule is
in effect) and the ensuing throw-in spot would have been on the end
line.

A common foul is a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor -
intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal
nor a part of a double, simultaneous or multiple foul.