In picking the harsher one to penalize, didn't he just do exactly what you suggested? Pick one act to penalize.

If you are going to pick one act as you suggest, how do you propose selecting which one to penalize? Flip a coin?

Who cares how you pick? Or what you pick either? What difference does it make? Just pick the penalty that you think is appropriate. But there is NO rule anywhere that states that you SHOULD apply the harsher penalty every time as Nevada inferred. That was my point, such point which was obviously misunderstood by you.

Given that I was the one who, 7 months ago, originally stated there was no rules basis for alway picking one or the other, I'm quite aware there is no rule that says to pick the harsher penalty. Your point was understood....long ago. However, his solution is still as valid of a solution as any.

Just curious - what would you have if the thrower, with the ball at his disposal, as he is attempting to inbound the ball, reaches across and pushes the defender to assist him in inbounding the ball?

Intentional personal.

+1

Penalizing both is akin to double jeopardy.

Besides, there's not a whole lot of "harsher" either way. IPF or TF, it's still two free throws and the ball. Yes, there's a few other differences (choice of shooter, spot of throw-in, counting toward DQ), but they seem minor in this whole equation.

I disagree that the differences are minor. T is halfway to DQ and possible suspension, and the choice of shooter is a big deal; especially since a lot of teams use a big man (typically poorer FT shooters than the guards) to throw-in the ball following a score.

Personally, I have no idea which I'd choose without seeing the game or the play itself.

How is this any different from an inbounds player and pushing a defender back in order to get a pass off?

I'm not sure that I see this an intentional foul. (I'm not certain its not either).

Might be the way I'm picturing it, but I see a difference between creating space when the defender is on top of you and reaching across the line to create space when there's already space there.

I've never seen a defender up against a thrower on a throw-in, and when the thrower simply has to step backwards (an option not available on the court), it's simply not a "basketball play," IMO.

This part of the post is now moot, as the committee this year made it an intentional foul regardless of whether the inbounder has broken the plane or not.

If this is a solid push, then you have a choice between a team control foul (new this year during a throw-in) and an intentional personal foul. If there is not much contact, one could go with the following NFHS interp.

The NFHS issued an interpretation last season which has no basis in the rules book, in fact the part is red is simply wrong by rule, but here it is:

Basketball Rules Interpretations - 2009-10

Publisher’s Note: The National Federation of State High School Associations is the only source of official high school interpretations. They do not set aside nor modify any rule. They are made and published by the NFHS in response to situations presented.

Robert F. Kanaby, Publisher, NFHS Publications © 2009

SITUATION 1: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in and is being guarded by B1. Before releasing the ball, A1 loses his/her balance, reaches out and puts his/her hand on B1 (who is inbounds) in an effort to regain his/her balance. RULING: Throw-in violation by A1. A1 is required to remain out of bounds until releasing the throw-in pass. When A1 touches an inbounds player, he/she now has inbound status. However, if the contact on B1 is illegal, a personal foul should be called. COMMENT: A throw-in violation must be called in order to maintain the balance between offense and defense. (2-3; 9-2-1; 9-2-5)

So, with that ruling, we could call a throw in violation on the thrower when the defender contacts the thrower who has extended their arm across the throwin plane while holding the ball but such contact doesn't warrant a foul??? ;););):p (as opposed to the newly minted and also unsupportable intentional foul for the fouling the thrower in the same situation.)