FT Shooter Fouled

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Perhaps we consider 10-3-7 to speak to the subject:

A player shall not . . . Intentionally or flagrantly contact an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is not a personal foul.

Consider it and then read what I wrote. If that's not enough go to the rule definitions and then the corresponding case book studies. You don't need to bother with the word excessive on a dead ball technical. You do however have to use it during live ball, especially during an airborne shooter situation. The casebook talks about a shooting situation when there is excessive contact.

During a live ball, on a normal play, I'm likely to call an intentional if there is excessive contact. During a dead ball you don't ask yourself if it was excessive and then decide to give a technical. The part of the rule I quoted doesn't ever need to be used to decide if you're giving a T during dead ball.

[Adam]

The rule is that dead ball contact is to be ignored unless it is deemed intentional or flagrant. Unless you're going to include "excessive" as a means of determining whether or not it can be deemed intentional, then it sounds like the contact in the OP should have been ignored.

[just another ref]

It is a given in the OP that the contact was ruled to be excessive. If so, I see no way to ignore it. The definition for an intentional personal foul and an intentional technical foul are, for all practical purposes, the same definition.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

The rule is that dead ball contact is to be ignored unless it is deemed intentional or flagrant. Unless you're going to include "excessive" as a means of determining whether or not it can be deemed intentional, then it sounds like the contact in the OP should have been ignored.

That was the point which I was attempting to make. Thank you for writing it rather succinctly.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by The_Rookie

B1 commits a Hard Foul on A1 ...

Originally Posted by Adam

The rule is that dead ball contact is to be ignored unless it is deemed intentional or flagrant. Unless you're going to include "excessive" as a means of determining whether or not it can be deemed intentional, then it sounds like the contact in the OP should have been ignored.

Here in my little corner of Connecticut (When in Rome ...) we equate a "hard foul" with an excessive contact intentional foul, and we actually have our own unauthorized signal for such a foul. So when I hear "hard foul", I automatically think of an intentional foul. Others should check their local listings.

4-19-3-D: 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: Excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.