How would this hypothetical be sorted out?
 

A1 shoots a 3-pointer and is fouled pretty hard by B1. The try is no good. B1 doesn't mean any harm, just the way he contacted A1, it was a hard foul. A1 takes exception to this and decides to deck B1 in the jaw. B1 is smart and walks away.

Before the punch, A1 would have had three free throw attempts coming. Obviously, though, A1 is ejected for fighting.

How is it handled from here? Does A1's substitute still get three free throws?

yes substitute must shoot FT. Then anyone from team B shoots Tech throws and B gets ball at Division line following final throw.

Why wouldn't he?

What if you called an intentional personal foul?
 

citing 4.19.3
A foul shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

If intentional foul was called, would it affect the procedures?

Would it still be 3 free throws for team A followed by 2 technical free throws for B plus B with the ball at the division line for a throw in?

The procedure is not altered simply because an excessive contact foul is called. This is still simply a false double foul: penalize in the order they ocurred. Don't forget to remove the ejected player before any fouls shots, though.

Yes.

Even before I read that A1 decks B1, I got the feeling of an intentional foul (for excessive contact) on B1. This is a good call when you must eject A1.

Obtain the substitute for A1 being ejected.

A1's substitute will be awarded three shots for B1's foul.

Then B-anyone shoots the two shots for the flagrant foul. B throw-in @ the DL.

The NCAA ruling is different
 

Here's how we'd proceed under NCAA rules, where T's work differently: Team B shoots two FTs for the T, then we go to POI, which is A1's substitute shooting 3 FTs. If the foul by B1 is ruled a common foul, then players occupy the lane spaces and play continues normally after the last FT. If the foul by B1 is ruled intentional, no one occupies the lane spaces and A gets a throw-in at the spot nearest where the foul occurred after the last FT.

Why isn't B ejected? 4-18-2 sure has an argument here.

4-18-2: An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act that causes a person to retaliate by fighting.

Maybe. However, strictly speaking, B1 possibly didn't attempt to start a fight. Our judgment; it's why we get paid.

I thought a flagrant dead ball contact included the throwin.

Don't have my book, but I thought there was a case play for this that basically said a borderline act that actually leads to a fight should be considered fighting as well.

NCAAM v. NCAAW

There was a case play in years past that showed a hard foul and a retalliation punch equaled a fight by both players.

I remember this as well. A borderline act would need to be clearly defined though. A hard foul (excessive contact) does that. It does lead to an unequal penalty, though. :mad:

Oddly enough, I was assigned a regional final for last night and I had an excessive contact foul (b1 against A1) where the contact did gather some attention by other A players.

Is this NCAA?