Double Jeopardy ...
 

Indianaref's recent post got me to thinking (always a dangerous proposition).

Team B has already been officially warned (in the book) for a delay of game situation. Several minutes later, B1 crosses the boundary line and fouls inbounder A1 (which absent the earlier delay of game warning would have resulted in an intentional personal foul in addition to a delay of game warning).

What happens next?

Intentional personal foul, A1 shoots the free throws?

Delay of game technical foul, anyone on Team A shoots the free throws?

Both?

What's a mother to do?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ed/be...87817a7e51.jpg

It was a T when B crossed the line. That ends the throw-in. The contact is ignored (unless on its own it's I or F, not because it's otherwise an I by rule).

Always An Intentional Foul ...
 

Isn't crossing the boundary line and fouling the inbounder always an intentional foul by rule?

Or are you saying that there was no longer an inbounder because the throwin had ended with the technical foul?

The latter -- edited my response to make it more clearerer

Citations ...
 

Makes sense (and a good way to avoid double jeopardy) but there's a lot of citations that say it's always an intentional foul.

4.19.14 SITUATION: What type of foul is committed when: B1 crosses the end line and fouls thrower A1; RULING: It is an intentional personal foul.

9.2.10 SITUATION B: Team A has a (a) designated spot throw-in, or (b) alternating-possession throw-in along the end line. Thrower A1 extends the ball with his/her arms over the end line such that part of the forearms, hands, and the ball are entirely on the inbounds side of the boundary line. B2 slaps A1 on the wrist and dislodges the ball. RULING: In (a) and (b), when a defender makes contact with a thrower-in, the result is an intentional foul. Where A1’s arms are located (on the inbounds or out-of-bounds side of the boundary line) is immaterial.

9.2.10 SITUATION C: Team A has a designated spot throw-in along the end line. Thrower A1 extends the ball with his/her arms over the end line such that part of the forearms, hands and the ball are entirely on the inbounds side of the boundary line. B2 slaps A1 on the wrist and dislodges the ball. RULING: When a defender makes contact with a thrower-in, the result is an intentional foul. Where A1’s arms are located (on the inbounds or out-of-bounds side of the boundary line) is immaterial for this penalty to be assessed. A1 is awarded two free throws and Team A awarded a throw-in at the spot nearest the foul. COMMENT: For a boundary plane violation warning to also be assessed, the defender must actually violate the rule and penetrate the boundary plane. (4-19-3e; 4-47-1; 7-5-4b; 9-2-10 Penalty 4)

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; or (b) B2 reaches through the out-of-bounds plane and touches the ball while in the hands of A1. RULING: It is an intentional personal foul in (a), and a technical foul in (b). 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. If the player making the throw-in (A1) reaches through the out-of-bounds plane into the court and B1 then slaps the ball from the hand of A1, no violation has occurred. B1 has merely slapped a live ball from the hands of A1. (4-19-3, 4; 9-2-10 Penalty 3, 4)

10.4.10 SITUATION C: Team A scores near the end of the fourth quarter and is trailing by one point. B1 has the ball and is moving along the end line to make the throw-in. A2 steps out of bounds and fouls B1. Is the foul personal or technical? RULING: This is an intentional personal foul. The time remaining to be played or whether Team A had been previously warned for a delay-of-game situation is not a -factor. If the team had not been warned, the foul constitutes the warning. (4-19-1; 9-2-10 Penalty 4)


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:
e. Contact with a thrower-in as in 9-2-10 Penalty 4.

The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of
his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line
plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.
NOTE: The thrower may penetrate the plane provided he/she does not
touch the inbounds area or a player inbounds before the ball is released on
the throw-in pass. The opponent in this situation may legally touch or grasp
the ball.
PENALTIES: (Art. 10)
4. If an opponent(s) contacts the thrower, an intentional personal foul
shall be charged to the offender. No warning for delay required.

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.

Never ...
 

If the ball did became dead, we would never be able to call this type of intentional foul, just the one where the inbounder holds the ball and his arms and hands over the inbound side of the boundary.

Wait? We can call intentional (or flagrant) fouls during a dead ball, it would be technical, not personal.

Not Just Academic ...
 

Isn't any delay of game after a delay of game warning always a team technical foul?

Isn't crossing the boundary line and fouling the inbounder always an intentional personal foul?

After a warning, which one is charged, or are they both charged?

Remember in one the inbounder shoots the free throws, in another the best free shooter on the team gets to shoot the free throws, so it really does make a difference, it's not just academic .

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.

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. :/

Intelligent Minds Think Alike ...
 

My same exact thought.

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

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

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.

Subsequent Illegal Contact Is Intentional Or Flagrant ...
 

... 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.

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.