Of course this is entirely subjective and everyone has slightly different parameters for calling an intentional foul.
Early returns from IAABO members are favoring a "personal" foul.
Oddly, one IAABO member makes a comment defending a "personal" foul call but still describes the contact "hard". Probably a when in Rome thing, but here in my little corner of Connecticut we call "hard" illegal contact an excessive contact intentional foul. We even have an unauthorized signal for excessive "hard" contact intentional fouls, after displaying cross over head, bring both arms down hard to sides. We're even instructed to say, "Hard foul", when displaying the signal.
Other comments defending a "personal" foul call describe a lack of a premeditated intent to harm, which is not relevant.
4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that may or may not be premeditated and is not based solely on the severity of the act. Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to:
a. Contact that neutralizes an opponent’s obvious advantageous position.
b. Contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved with a play.
c. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball/player specifically designed to stop the clock or keep it from starting.
d. Excessive contact with an opponent while the ball is live or until an airborne shooter returns to the floor.
e. Contact with a thrower-in as in 9-2-10 Penalty 4.