Double Jeopardy ...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This will be one of the few threads that you will see in which Bob is not correct.

The proper ruling is an intentional personal foul. The entire act is to be viewed by the official in this situation. The ball does not become dead upon the breaking of the plane by the defender and the contact with the thrower is penalized.

As for the warning, it is only given in this situation if the team has not previously been warned.

I agree. IPF for the entire single act.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree. IPF for the entire single act.

Upon reflection, I am inclined to agree. But, it seems strange that there'd be a lesser penalty (the person fouled must shoot) for a more egregious act.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Upon reflection, I am inclined to agree. But, it seems strange that there'd be a lesser penalty (the person fouled must shoot) for a more egregious act.

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. :/

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

True. I actually like the rational that the ball would be dead the moment the line is crossed, but that isn't the approved interpretation. :/

Wouldn't that mean the violation always precludes the intentional personal foul from happening? As soon as the defender crosses a boundary line the play is dead on all occurrences.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Wouldn't that mean the violation always precludes the intentional personal foul from happening? As soon as the defender crosses a boundary line the play is dead on all occurrences.

Yes, it would. That, IMO, is far better than the silliness of requiring an IPF for legally playing the ball, misisng, and hitting the arm all while staying on the inbounds side of the line.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Wouldn't that mean the violation always precludes the intentional personal foul from happening? As soon as the defender crosses a boundary line the play is dead on all occurrences.

... unless subsequent illegal contact is intentional or flagrant, in which case it's a technical, not a personal, foul.

I've posted plenty of citations and rules above to show that crossing the boundary and illegally contacting the inbounder is always considered an intentional foul (but personal, not technical).

Interesting thread.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... unless subsequent illegal contact is intentional or flagrant, in which case it's a technical, not a personal, foul.

I've posted plenty of citations and rules above to show that crossing the boundary and illegally contacting the inbounder is always considered an intentional foul (but personal, not technical).

Interesting thread.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... seems strange that there'd be a lesser penalty (the person fouled must shoot) for a more egregious act.

My same exact thought.

Plus halfway up the court for the technical inbound, a big deal with two seconds remaining in a period.