Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mbyron
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.
|
My man, don't fight it, just learn from it.
From what you wrote and I put in
red, it seems that you are confusing the kinds of fouls.
The two main types of fouls are
PERSONAL and
TECHNICAL. All other labels are subcategories of those and can modify either one of the two main categories. For example, there is both an intentional personal foul and an intentional technical foul, just as there are double personal fouls and double technical fouls.
This is something that every official needs to understand, but many have great difficultly grasping.
PS Lastly, I'll add that at the NCAA level on the mens side there is a difference in the administration of an intentional technical foul (dead ball contact) and an unsporting technical foul (the normal T). The first one is two shots and the ball, while the latter is 2 shots and play is resumed at the POI. So knowing these specific terms can only help you as move up.