Agree. IMHO the problem with holding the whistle in this situation is that you run the risk of retaliation and other "extra curricular" activities that this type of foul may cause, especially since you said it was already a 20 point game.

So what infer from you is, on a common foul, you can hold the whistle, but on an intentional foul, it's immediate. If that's what you're saying, what rule citations are there, or is this more of a gut feeling?

Where in the world do you get that inference?

I don't know where you got that inference from.

Bottom-line, on personal fouls away from the ball you need to determine the status of the ball at the time of the foul. Concentrate on and master that before before trying to get all cutesy with delayed whistles and being "fair".

Your words...

I believe we're already on the same page, sir.

A prerequisite for a delayed whistle is determining the status of the ball at the time of the foul.

Why would you consider calling a foul away from the play like this anything but an intentional/flagrant foul? An opponent trying to commit a foul away form the play like this is a textbook example of a foul that "neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position," and it's the only way I'd put air in the whistle.

Where'd you get the idea that I would?

An inference from your inference...curious why you'd ask the difference between a common and intentional foul. In the scenario presented, if there's a call to be made, the only one to be made is an intentional or flagrant foul. A common foul should not enter the equation.

I agree. But, I was specifically talking about whether to hold the whistle, and when one would hold it.

The problem is you are applying delayed violations (FT violations on the defense; unsporting T's on defense during a drive to the basket) to personal fouls.

If you have a personal foul away from the ball you have to determine the status of the ball at the time of the foul. You are trying to apply the delayed violation rule to this scenario. It doesn't apply.

Context:

1. I said nothing about holding the whistle for a common foul.
2. The context is that this was a response to your post below.

My point was the "unfair advantage" aspect is taken care of by the added penalty of the possession. Note there's nothing about holding or whitholding your whistle on either foul.

You hold your whistle only long enough to determine if it was really a foul; which will typically take longer for a common foul than for an intentional foul.

For that matter, we have NOTHING in the rules that allow us to delay the call for the T until after the shot....but we're instructed to do just that.

In the case of a defender committing a violation away from the play in hopes of drawing a whistle to kill the play, we have directives to delay the violation (leaving the court, swinging elbows) and call it after the shot and penalize the infraction at that time (count the basket, award possession). The rules don't support it in any way, but, again, we're directed to cover it that way.

Also, the arguments about getting 2 FTs and possession being sufficient, if that were a valid argument, should apply to the case of a T if it were actually a valid argument. It's not. In fact, it would be more apropos to the case of a T given that the T allows any shooter. Yet, the NFHS deems 2 shots by any player and possession an inadequate consequence.

The rules and philosophies surrounding game situations are intended to be consistent, even if there are not case plays covering all scenarios. AFAIK, there is no specific case play covering an intentional foul away from the ball in an obvious scoring opportunity. We do have cases covering intentional fouls at the point of the play and violations (leaving the court, elbows) away from the play. As such we're left with extrapolating between case plays. We either treat it like common fouls away from the ball in absence of an obvious scoring opportunity or we treat it like all the cases covering infractions committed in the presence of an obvious scoring opportunities. This scenario falls between the specific case plays we have. We get to use our minds to decide which of the two options best fits the play.

When an undefended shot is imminent and a foul occurs, intentional or not, I'm simply not going to kill the shot unless escalation is likely. Then, if the foul MUST be called, I'll count the shot (if it goes) and then deal with the foul. I'm not talking about the play still being in the backcourt and waiting several seconds for the play to develop....you can't wait that long....but rules makers have made it clear in several situations that it is not the intent to allow the defense to take away an obvious scoring opportunity by committing an infraction away from the ball. In several rulings, they have declared that the infraction should be penalized AFTER the shot. I'm going to follow that established line of thinking in this case. In fact, the intentional foul away from the ball is more egregious than an intentional foul at the shot and deserves a greater penalty than an intentional foul at the point of the ball.

It is not my philosophy...it is the NFHS philosophy.

True. The basic idea is that NFHS allows for a delayed whistle on noncontact situations. That's a FT violation or an unsporting technical foul. For contact situations, there is no provision for delaying the whistle.
The rules book states when the ball becomes dead and when it doesn't on such.

My advice for those wondering how to handle the sitch posed by the OP is to simply stick to the rules book and penalize accordingly.

Yup. Applying the case play for the unsporting technical foul to a play involving live ball intentional contact is a stretch. It may be a small stretch, but it's a stretch nonetheless, and one that could easily lead to an escalated situation before you decide to blow your whistle.