DoG on Inbound throw-in

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not a valid comparison.

It is still a foul, a technical foul specifically, to clock someone in the face with an elbow even during a dead ball.

However, there is nothing illegal about contacting a ball that is dead.

That, of course, is not to say that the case play on this topic is wrong.....just that your example doesn't work.

I follow your argument, but don't agree with it.
However, this is a good exercise in criticial/logical thinking, so...to follow your lead, let me alter my example and ask further questions of you.

1. While A1 is holding a live ball inbounds near the FT line, A2 and B2 are battling for position near the basket. B2 excessively swings his arms/elbows and strikes A2 in the face. How are you penalizing this action?
a. Excessive arm/elbow swinging violation with a technical foul for intentional/flagrant dead ball contact.
b. A common personal foul or an intentional/flagrant personal foul.

2. During a throw-in while A4 is holding the ball out-of-bounds, B4 steps across the boundary plane and punches A4 in the face. How are you penalizing this action?
a. A breaking the plane violation by Team B and a dead ball flagrant technical foul.
b. A flagrant personal foul.

In both cases, who may attempt the FTs is different depending upon your answer, so this does matter and must be clearly covered by the rules.

I hope that you find these examples more satisfactory for comparison to MS's line of thinking.