Yes, you can have a PC foul on a throw in.

But:

To me, it's clearly intentional.

It would depend on when I consider the ball to be at the thrower's disposal. This is a judgement call by the official and would depend on the circumstances since it is not clearly defined. You start your count when the ball is at the thrower's disposal ... yet the ball is at the thrower's disposal when you start you count.

In this case, I would be starting my count when the player picks up the ball and sprints towards the out of bounds area to initiate a throw in (or contact with another player as it turned out here). In my opinion, this is right before the contact occurs.

Malicious means intended to do harm. The harm in this case consists of bumping another person for no reason, so no, on it's own, I couldn't call it flagrant. But, as others have stated, this is not a basketball play, so therefore any amount of contact could be considered excessive which would in my opinion justify an intentional foul call.

Is the player actually in (or has had enough time to be) a position where they can actually execute a legal throwin? If not, then it isn't at their disposal yet. It would be unfair and not with the purpose of the rule to start the 5 count before they could actually execute a legal throwin. Sprinting toward the spot doesn't seem to be a situation where the player could legally release a throwin.

If he had been trying to execute a legal throw-in, then yes. All that he would have to do is step one foot out of bounds (other foot in the air). But I've never seen that as a definition for "at his/her disposal", but perhaps I've missed it somewhere.

I admit its close. But my first instinct when watching it in real time was that right as I start counting is when I see the contact and have a whistle. And I'd have an Int foul.

I haven't been on here in a long time, but this is an interesting play to look at. I do not have my NFHS books with me here at work and I don't remember the actual wording in the NFHS rules book, but according the the NCAA women's rules book;

Art. 1. The ball is at the disposal of a player when it is:
a. Handed to the thrower-in or free-thrower;
b. Caught by the thrower-in or the free-thrower after it is bounced to her;
c. Placed at a spot on the floor; or
d. Available to a player after a goal and the official begins the throw-in count.

According to d, in this situation, the ball is not yet live. The question remains, however, is the contact incidental and to be ignored, or is it flagrant or excessive (again the NCAA women's terminology). Determining that portion of this play is difficult, especially just watching a clip and not being on the floor working the game. I can see an argument for either a no call or a dead ball contact technical.

I think the bigger lesson here is how the crew handled this situation. This is not a standard, happens every night play, especially considering it was in state tournament play where everything is magnified. I would have liked to see at least two of the officials come together and talk about what happened. Someone should have asked the calling official, "do we have a live ball, or a dead ball?" Stop and talk about how things are going to be administered, and then go to the table. We are a crew on games so that we can talk and get rulings correct. On strange plays like this, as a crew, we also help each other through talking and clarifying the rules portion so that the calling official is prepared to answer questions from coaches and the crew administers the penalties correctly.

Wow, playing the race card. That's where your mind automatically goes? SMH. I immediately knew he was talking about who fell down, and I haven't even seen the video since the thread first opened.

I wasn't playing the race card. If you actually read what I said I was implying that if the poster who I referenced was that he was wasting his time. I may have brought it up, but I didn't play it.

Oh, I'm quite aware what you were saying. My definition of 'playing the race card' probably is different than yours.
;)

For once the announcer got it spot on correct…

“He knows exactly what he’s doing.”

As many have suggested I was merely referencing which player fell down...I wonderred when I posted my prior response if someone would interpret it racially...I am wonderring how many officials might change their judgment on this play if there was a different result?

Only those who play the "race card" ;)

Race never once entered my mind on the play until someone here brought it up.

If there was a different result it would be a different play, and therefore, yes my opinion might change. I don't really understand the question I guess.

Isn't he saying to take the same action and have the offensive player fall down. are you still calling a foul on the offense?