Double Jeopardy ...

[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.