The case play wording quoted by you is correct. The rule is very specifically worded, however. It doesn't imply it states "while playing the ball"

Anyway, why no intentionals on a hard player control foul? Why no intentionals on a hard illegal pick?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing - i'm just trying to understand.

JR,

Tell me why a player with the ball can cause a lot of contact without getting called for an intentional? Like when dribbling or act of shooting? But if he is shooting and gets taken to the floor, we don't judge for intent we judge for excess.

Huh? He can be charged with an Intentional Personal foul. See 4.19.6B (and, while it's an "airborne shooter" and not "a player with the ball", I think the concept still applies.)

(Maybe I'm just not understanding the question(s).)

Seriously? Or are you just warming up for your weekly blarge bash?

The question is: if I call a double foul that includes an intentional foul on the dribbler, how do I penalize it? What happens?

If I handled it like a garden-variety double foul, we'd go to the POI, which is possession for A. That doesn't seem fair, given that A committed the intentional foul.

Personally, I'd skip the double and just penalize the intentional.

Bob,

That intentional is probably for intent - not excessive contact. My question has to do with excessive contact verses intent. Why does a hard player control not get assessed as intentional?

And, is the wording "while playing the ball" an important piece in the rule?

I have had it happen several times where I call block, player was upset because he was thinking charge, and on the next possession the same player runs over a defender out of anger. Only once was it so blatant that I called it intentional- he announced he was going to do it on the way up the floor. On others it has been a T because the player started arguing about the subsequent charge call.

Several times? Wow, how long have you been reffing? I've never seen this.

If you had a double foul when one team was in the bonus, you wouldn't shoot, and that also "doesn't seem fair."

Just administer the double foul. See 10-6 Penalty 1 (the Note deals with Flagrant, but the same (except for the DQ) applies to Intentional)

I think it could get assessed as intentional. That said, most PC fouls are "charges" and the player taking the charge expects contact so the level required to be "excessive" is perhaps higher than in other cases.

Right, typically it involves a player stepping into the path of an opponent who is moving quickly. Hard contact is to be expected; just like a blind screen.

Bob,

In the old days, shooters expected contact as well. The only thing we didn't want was for him to be undercut (flagrant). Then, they added this piece about taking a shooter hard to the floor. Now, we are saying that we can apply this excessive contact to these bone rattling player control fouls?

I've never seen it called that way???

The only place that excessive contact is discussed is in the intentional definition and in the same sentence, it has that wording attached. Please explain the wording in the definition to me "while playing the ball".

Then don't call it that way if you don't believe Bob.

All that is about is a reference to a line earlier in the same definition.

"Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball....."

The line you mention tells us that even if these conditions are not met it can still be ruled intentional if the foul involves excessive contact.

Snagwells,

Since when is trying to understand a rule not believing somebody? Even if it's you doing the explaining?

Mulk