Lesson learned

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tref

Well if he has an "over the back" foul & it wasnt on a try, the clock stops there, right?
Then the egregious act had to be on the dead ball, no? To me that sounds like a false double. In that situation the 2nd foul was during a dead ball... Intentional T or flagrant T.

You missed my point....

Assume the ball was not dead (no other foul called). Would you have then called the contact intentional/flagrant?

If not, then it was not intentional or flagrant. Contact doesn't become intentional just because the ball was dead if it wouldn't have been intentional/flagrant with the clock running. It is nothing.

Said another way, contact during a dead ball is ignored unless that contact was intentional/flagrant. The definition of intentional/flagrant doesn't change depending on the status of the ball (live/dead). The only thing that changes is that dead ball contact becomes a T, when the contact, on its own merits, is intentional/flagrant.

From your OP, It doesn't sound like you were even considering anything but a common foul until you realized your partner called it on the other player....if that is the case, it wasn't an intentional foul.