Double Jeopardy ...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.