Grasping rim then dunking

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Team B has already received a delay of game warning. B1 fouls thrower A1. We all know that it is an intentional foul to foul a thrower. We also know that if a warning had not been given, you give a warning and assess a foul. In this situation, we now have B1 committing a second delay of game which is nornmally a team technical and we have an intentional foul. Do you penalize the breaking of the plane and the fouling of the thrower as two separate acts or just treat them as one?

From wikipedia.com:

Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham.

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities.

Put me down for the intentional foul only.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Put me down for the intentional foul only.

You're wise beyond your years. You must be a Yankees fan.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

From wikipedia.com:
Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham.

This is often paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest hypothetical entities.

What page do I find Ockham's razor in the rule book?

On what rule reference do you base your assumption and postulate?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

What page do I find Ockham's razor in the rule book?

It's not, obviously. But unless I get something pretty explicit from the NFHS that says to call both, I think the competing solutions are equal. So I choose the simpler one.

[BktBallRef]

"...competing solutions are equal...?"

Without regard to what you think, can you find a rule/reference that supports not calling them both?

I can't.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Without regard to what you think, can you find a rule/reference that supports not calling them both?

Nope. But I simply don't believe the intent of the rule is penalize twice for basically the same act. Yes, you could read the rules that way. I understand that. But unless I see a case play or clarification from the NFHS, I just don't think that's the way it's supposed to be called.

I realize that we call the intentional foul AND issue the warning if a defender contacts the inbounder before a delay warning has been given. But I don't think that's to penalize 2 acts; I think that's so that we have justification to call the T next time he breaks the plane without contacting anything. He doesn't get a free pass to jump across the plane next time, just because he whacked the inbounder this time.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Without regard to what you think, can you find a rule/reference that supports not calling them both?

I can't.

I can. Rule 9-2PENALTY4. T'aint no mention of a technical foul anywhere in there that I can see. One act--->one penalty.

Still going around in circles, aren't we?