Correct Sequence?
 

A1 is intentionally fouled in the act of shooting, and makes the shot. Coach B is T'd up before any subsequent free throws. The officials give A1 two free throws for the intentional foul, two for the technical, and Team A the ball out of bounds.

Was that correct? There was some question as to whether or not it should only be one free throw for the intentional because the basket counted.

An intentional foul is always two shots.

Yes, correct sequence, assuming Team A got the ball at the division line (you just said "out of bounds").

2 shots is correct. 4.19.3 Situation A

Sorry. Yes, the ball came in at the division line.

Actually it is always at least 2 shots. There is one case it could be 3 shots (missed three point shot).

Peace

So on a made three point shot, it would still be two shots then?

Yes you are right.

Why is there a question about that? Where have these questioners seen it written that there is ever only 1 shot after an intentional foul?

Doesn't anybody in these discussions ever carry a rule book? I guess that is a rhetorical question since it's obvious no one in that discussion seems to have ever cracked a rule book in regards to this subject.

OK, rant over.

No, on a made 3-point shot, and the penalty for a IF is 4 free throws and the offended team gets to keep the ball until they score another basket. :rolleyes:

Somebody wrote the rules down and actually published them in book format? Are there copies readily available, or do you have to know someone to get one?:D

Pls pm me PDF. Thx

I'm just happy when there isn't someone who chimes in that it should be three shots: 2 for the intentional and 1 for the "and one."

Nit Picky ...
 

A1 did not have to take the two free throws for the technical foul. Any Team A player, or eligible substitute, could have shot these two free throws.

Right, I know that. A1 is a particularly good FT shooter, so he would have likely been picked by coach to shoot the techs anyway

Can't we all just get along?
 

Can't some people ignore threads they feel haven't been properly researched first by the OP? As a less experienced basketball ref, I find many of them helpful even if I know the rule as it helps me lock it in. And often there are "this case is clear, but what about if ..." and there is a good discussion that is also helpful.

Just one guy's opinion, but seems like as officials we should be allowed to ask each other dumb questions. I'm a very experienced baseball umpire and I'm always glad if other umps ask me even simple questions if it helps them improve.

1) I'm talking about the people who actually had this situation and discussion in the real world.

2) Some people consistently never research rules, in the real world and in the forum.

Both fair points. One of my favorite activities (call me a geek) is to get my rulebook out after games to confirm any calls I had even a twinge of doubt about, but also the ones that remind me of a "I have to remember to look that up again" even if it didn't actually occur. I fully believe--and learned this from baseball--I may totally blow a judgement call, but there's no excuse to blow a rule. Unless, of course, the rule is so unclear as many of the NCAA-M PC/Charge discussions have illustrated lately...

I failed to make a call this season in my secondary that should have been a foul by rule (NCAA: defender laying on ground causing ball handler to fall). Crew chief pointed it out to me and my partner during post game. There was no excuse for me not to come get that play b/c in my very first NCAA game 5 seasons ago, I blew the same play.

Had the opportunity to redeem myself later in this season and came in hard in my secondary when the primary failed to pick it up.