You want fair? Call Judge Judy. Since when is "fairness" a criteria for the rules?

When there is play in the lane and the Offensive Player, with the ball, clears some space with his arms to get off a shot, do you call intentional or PC?

In the OP, I see the action as that of two players trying to accomplish something. The Offensive Player's action is illegal and therefore a foul, but I don't deem it as falling under the definition of an Intentional Foul. I can't imagine calling an Intentional Foul everytime a player uses his forearm to "get some space."

My $.02, I am calling this a personal foul (no PC or TC) and penalizing accordingly.

My other $.02, If an official chooses to call this Intentional, then it is Intentional. But it doesn't HAVE to be Intentional.

Ok so dont question what you are told to do? I was just providing food for thought.

You didn't say, "let's talk to the rules committee about this" You were implying that what's said in the book doesn't seem fair, so we shouldn't call it that way. Question all you want. But that shouldn't change how you call it, until the rule is actually changed.

but certainly a PC foul in NEVER a play on the ball...

Okay, I was reading "inverted" to mean simply that B1 fouls A1 rather than reaching through the plane to do it. I see what you mean now.

However, the intentional foul rule here is only for the defender reaching out of bounds. The only way you can call this intentional is if it's the same type of foul you'd call inentional on a ball handler inbounds.

Sooo......

After a lot of thought, I'm thinking maybe you mean that since it's not a play on the ball it must be intentional?? That's some kind of error in logic though I don't remember the name of it. An illegal screen isn't a play on the ball, but it's not intentional. And as you say, no PC is a play on the ball, but a PC is almost never intentional. I just don't see any rules support for calling the contact intentional if it's initiated by A1.

Juulie-
I would tend to agree with all you said, other than the point about being an intentional on the defender, when he reached thru the plane, but A1 initiated the contact. If you are going to go by book rule, logic says that there would have been a plane violation before any contact was made. In a case of the defender making the contact, the plane warning is over-ruled by the intentional foul. I am not sure that would be the same case with A1 initiating contact on the OOB side.

Yea, I guess it would be largely a matter of perception. The physics of the thing would mean that the violation would HAVE to happen before the contact (if it happens oob). So the foul might be seen as always being initiated by the defender. The ball-handler wouldn't have time to initiate contact before the violation happened.

So the alert official should blow the whistel instantly upon the defnder reaching in and call the violation or warning thus avoiding the intentional foul or causing an intentional technical becuase the ball is now dead?

The other reason to call the foul intentional is that it would not be a basketball play to push a defener out of the way with the arm or ball to gain an advantage to inbound the ball?

If the defender commits the foul, you call the intentional foul. If the defender breaks the plane, and then the thrower makes contact, I say you call the violation/technical foul.

This, of course, is a judgment call. I just say that the throw-in has nothing to do with the call in this case. If you call this intentional, it would be a foul that you would call intentional if both players were inbounds.

The above discussion brings the following to mind. Intentional is perhaps not the best name for this type of foul. Intentional usually means "on purpose."
Yet by definition, many actions on the court which are done "on purpose," will never result in an intentional foul call. Conversely, intentional foul is the proper call for some things which were obviously not done "on purpose."

Especially on this particular situation that comment is very apt.

My point however facitous was that the defender has to break the plane to comit the foul. So the enforcment of both seems to be overkill and had a prior warning been issued you could have two technicals for one action.

and while some have said fai has nothing to do with it I desagree we are asked to make similar calls on similar plays so I am thinking this would be one of those scenarios.

But OHBHRUIFLEEF they're not similar plays. One has a set of rules prescribed for it, and the other does not. Can't get much more dissimilar than that.

Also, for the ball-handler to push away the arm of the defender, is indeed a basketball play. You'd NEVER call it intentional if that same motion happened inbounds, unless it was for excessive roughness.

FOM is, this sitch shouldn't happen. DOG should be called as soon as defender reaches across. If there's enough time of the defender having body parts oob that the ball-handler feels that he has to reach out and push body parts away, ref isn't doing his/her job.

Unless in the OP, the contact happend on the inbound side of the plane. Then the ball-handler is an idiot and deserves to be called for a common foul.