Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Rule 4-19-5(c) doesn't allow your supposition. Contact fouls during a dead ball must be either intentional or flagrant, by definition( with the exception of a foul committed by an aiborne shooter).
|
Actually, 4-19-5 is consistent with what I said, since all of its parts are defining 'technical foul', not 'intentional technical foul'. And your point about contact being either intentional, flagrant, or ignored is also consistent with what I said in my previous post (which agreed with the substance of Nevada's). So your citation here is beside the point.
I was mainly objecting to the term "intentional technical foul," which I don't see in the rule book. It is, however, in case 4.19.5, meaning just what you all say it does.
It is not a happy term: an intentional foul is one kind of foul, and a technical quite another. The term 'intentional technical foul' misleadingly suggests that the types might overlap. Moreover, there is no difference in penalty or application between a 'technical foul' and an 'intentional technical foul' in this context; there is a clear difference between a 'technical foul' and a 'flagrant technical foul' that justifies the terminological difference.
Still, the term is there, so you're right after all, regardless of whether I like the term.