throw-in after double personal during free throw

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

8.7 SITUATION A:

A1 is attempting the second free throw of a two-shot foul.
While the second free throw is in flight, A2 and B1 punch each other simultaneously.

RULING:

Both A2 and B1 are disqualified for fighting. Since this is a double personal foul, no free throws are awarded. The ball is put in play at the point
of interruption. If A1's free throw is successful, Team B is awarded a throw-in
from anywhere along the end line. If A1's free throw is unsuccessful, the alternating-
possession procedure is used. (4-19-8; 6-4-3g; 7-5-3b; 4-36; 10-3-8; 10
Penalty 1c, 8a(1))

*10.4.5 SITUATION A:

Post-players A1 and B1 begin punching each other and
play is stopped. Two substitutes from each team leave the bench area and come
onto the court. The four substitutes: (a) do not become involved in the fight; (b)
all become involved in the fight; or (c) substitutes A6, A7, and B6 do not participate
in the fight, but B7 becomes involved in the fight. RULING: A1 and B1 are
charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws result from
the double personal flagrant fouls. ...

Without a doubt, these 2 plays give some significance to your argument. But I think this is greatly minimized by the fact that in both these plays there is only a passing reference to the fouls in question. Rule 8-7 deals with the administration sequence for free throws. Rule 10-4 deals with bench technicals. 10-3 deals with player technicals and states directly that no player shall be charged with fighting. There is no case play for 10-3-8. I'm guessing that this is because most people would consider this statement to be extremely self explanatory.

Your turn

[Nevadaref]

If fighting were always a technical foul no matter what, without exception, then those case plays wouldn't need to exist. Their very existence demonstrates otherwise and proves that 10-3-5 must be taken in the context of a dead ball.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

If fighting were always a technical foul no matter what, without exception, then those case plays wouldn't need to exist. Their very existence demonstrates otherwise and proves that 10-3-5 must be taken in the context of a dead ball.

If the fights in both these plays had taken place while the ball was dead,
(8.7 after the ball goes through the basket, 10.4.5 during any dead ball) how would that have changed the play?