Player Throws His Opponent To The Floor ...
 

4.19.3 SITUATION E: A1 is dribbling in the frontcourt. A3 and B4 are in the lane. (a) A3 throws B4 to the floor; (b) B4 throws A3 to the floor. RULING: In (a), illegal and in (b), intentional foul due to excessive contact while the ball is live. (4-19-3d)

I see only one difference between these two fouls. One, by A3, is a team control foul, and the other, by B3, isn't a team control foul.

Since both are described in the same exact manner, player throws his opponent to the floor, why is only one deemed intentional?

While a team is in control, can player on that team can be charged with an intentional foul followed by two free throws and ball as the consequence?

Or, does one never shoot free throws for a foul against player who's team is in control, even if the foul is deemed to be intentional, or flagrant?

Why am I confused by such a seemingly simple casebook play?

And where are my reading glasses?

Definitely missing context or different meanings here. You can "throw" someone to the floor without throwing them to the floor.

This is definitively not true by any interpretation of the rules.

I actually called an off-ball, intentional foul (Flagrant 1) on an offensive player last season in a Men's JuCo game.

Confirmation
 

So I figured. Thanks for the confirmation Raymond.

Wasn't there an annual interpretation of two free throws and the ball after an intentional foul by a player who was in control?

Seek And Ye Shall Find (Matthew 7) ...
 

What's The Point ???
 

What's the point of this casebook play? What are we supposed to learn from this casebook play? Why two different rulings (are they really different)? Since both acts are described exactly the same, shouldn't both be deemed intentional fouls if one is deemed an intentional foul?

Answers Needed ...
 

Can't anybody answer these questions?

The bolded question has already been answered by me (and maybe others): You even quoted my answer previously.

Is there somebody in the forum from the NFHS who can answer your first 3 questions? I wasn't aware there was.

Real Questions, Real Answers ...
 

I knew that my statement wasn't true when I posted it, just threw if against the wall (Devil's Advocate) as a possible, but not probable, answer. Later, I thanked Raymond for confirming my thought. I even cited a 1996 interpretation.

Now I want to move onto some real answers to some real questions.

Questions like:

Smart Rules Officials ...
 

Nor was I, but we do have some really smart "rules" officials (Raymond included) here on this forum.

If a ruling is wrong, doesn't matter how smart everybody is.

Confirmaion ...
 

This is the answer I was looking for.

Thank you.

However, technically, the ruling, "In (a), illegal", isn't really wrong, the action described is most certainly illegal.

The rulings are worded poorly and ambiguous by implying two different rulings, while the only real difference is team control versus "regular" foul, both of which should be upgraded to intentional fouls, not just the "regular" foul.

Here's how the caseplay should have been written.

A1 is dribbling in the frontcourt. A3 and B4 are in the lane. (a) A3 throws B4 to the floor; (b) B4 throws A3 to the floor. RULING: In both (a) and (b), intentional foul due to excessive contact while the ball is live. While many team control fouls (and player control fouls) do not result in free throws, an intentional foul is always penalized by awarding the offended player two free throws and the ball for a throw-in.

The ruling is wrong. And my previous answer already stated it was wrong. And you already knew it was wrong. You're trying to whip up some kind of debate when there isn't one to be had.

That's the 21-22 case play, and I'm pretty sure we discussed it before.

In 22-23, the ruling has been changed to "In (a) and (b), intentional foul due to excessive contact while the ball is live."

I hope that can end the discussion.

Always Listen To bob ...
 

Bingo. Thanks bob jenkins.