Intentional Foul?
 

Still less than a year into this, still a lot to learn! Yesterday, fall league, 6th grade boys, I call a held ball between A1 and B1, immediately after the whistle, A2 pushes B2. Nothing crazy, just a routine push that would be an easy common foul call during a live ball. B2 was displaced, but did not fall down. I recall in my classes the instructor saying that most dead-ball contact is incidental.

But I am finding the rules silent on this. 4-19-5(c) says a technical foul can be intentional or flagrant contact during a dead ball. It didn’t rise to the level of flagrant.

It is rule 4-19-3 which I am struggling with. The contact didn’t fall under sub-sections a through e. So I am left with “Intentional fouls include, but are not limited to….”

What are some examples of “not limited to….”?

Thanks very much!

The Ball became Dead when the Held Ball occurred. A2's illegal contact with B2 occurred while the Ball was Dead, therefore it is a Technical Foul. It is also my opinion based upon your description that A2's contact would have been an Intentional Personal Foul had the Ball been Live.

MTD, Sr.

It's hard to believe you don't have this all down pat after "less than a year" ;)

If you judged that the contact would have been a common foul during a live ball (as stated in your play), then it's "nothing" during a dead ball. (That's not the same as saying you shouldn't address it.)

Live Ball Contact=Intentional (Can not have a LIVE BALL CONTACT technical)
Dead Ball Contact/Dead Ball Anything=Technical (Can not have a DEAD BALL CONTACT intentional)

Remember the ball is live during a throw-in.

The only live ball technicals you can have are for unsporting acts or delays. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. But this is an easy way for me to remember.

Sura ya can. A1 scores and shoves B1 out of his way as he turns to go up the floor. Intentional Technical Foul. Ball is dead.

fify

In an effort not to paralyze the OP with details....

You're right that you have two options. They are A) nothing due to incidental, or B) intentional technical (most officials just call it a "technical" but the distinction is important because you're learning and taking exams this time of year).

Based on your description, what you choose really depends on what you meant by "pushes."

Is it possible that A2 was simply slow to react to the whistle and was in the process of committing a normal common foul that was associated with making a play vice acting out in frustration? If so, I'd rule this incidental, but I'd take a few quick steps toward A2 and B2 to make my presence known in an effort to keep B2 from retaliating in case he felt "slighted." Great opportunity for good dead ball officiating here without necessarily imposing any penalties.

However, if A2 clearly should have known to stop on the whistle....but didn't, and/or you detect an unsporting or frustrated vibe from A2's push, then I'd whistle the "T" here. Because it's a T, any eligible member of Team B may shoot the free throws and we resume play with a throw-in to Team B at the division line opposite the table. Oh, and now that you have a foul before the AP throw-in is complete, the arrow is suspended until the next AP situation; whoever had it to begin with keeps it....it's like the held ball never happened.

The answers so far have been helpful in ways very pertinent to the situation you describe. In answer to your actual question, I can't think of anything off the top of my head that wouldn't fall into one of those covered in the rule.

I think the key is that it is a contact foul that has some component of being unsporting. Even though the word "sportsmanship" and its derivatives are not used in that rule, I think it's implied from the five examples.

Thanks very much for all of the replies! I didn't call anything, but it seems that I should have. Next time. . . .

If you felt the contact was intentional or unsporting, then you can go with a Technical Foul in this situation.

And what may be deemed intentional during a dead-ball is not necessarily the same as what is deemed as intentional during a live-ball.

Example: During a live-ball, if B1 swipes at the ball and hits A1 on the arm, that's just a common foul. However, if the ball dead (like after a held ball is whistled) and B1 swipes at the ball and hits A1's arm, that's an intentional technical foul.

I personally subscribe to Bob's criteria. If it's something that would trigger me to call an intentional foul during live ball, I'll call the T. If it's something that would have been a common foul during live play, I'll probably have a chat about what the whistle means.

Added note: BNR, in your play, I've probably got nothing. It depends on just how long after the whistle the swipe happened. The longer the ball has been dead, the lower my threshold for calling a foul.

And I purposely did not put any time lapse references in my situation. It is not uncommon at all for an opponent to swipe at the ball well after the play is whistled dead. My decision will have less to do with elapsed seconds, and more to do with the temperature of the rivalry or game. I don't like the blanket statement that what is "intentional" during a live-ball is the same criteria as what is "intentional" during a dead ball, especially in some the games I have to officiate.

BNR - You are so much wiser after this past weekend !!!!! You were obviously paying attention !!!

I agree, blanket statements are bad. :)

I think the standard works in most situations, but consideration must be made for game temperature.

In an effort to not confuse those officials who are learning this material, please refrain from using "unsporting" when considering contact situations since the NFHS defines an unsporting technical foul as a non-contact foul. When instructing I say makes "deliberate" contact with an opponent during a dead ball. Sometimes the severity of the contact is important and sometimes it is not. We are allowed to judge the attitude and intent of the player. If he is simply being obnoxious, then he gets whacked and the contact falls under the category of an intentional technical foul.

I do think it is safe to say (and probably what you're thinking) that anything that is intentional during a live ball would also be at least intentional during a dead ball. However, some things that would be less than intentional during a live ball might rise to that level if during a dead ball.

You are correct.

And if this happens, how would you penalize? Technical procedure, or Intentional procedure? I was trying to keep it simple. Is an Intentional Technical, not still a TECHNICAL?

You will keep it simple once you recognize that there's no such thing as an Intentional Procedure or Intentional (alone) foul.

All fouls are either Personal or Technical. Within those categories, they can have modifiers, such as Common, Intentional, Flagrant, Player Control, Team Control, etc. I think (off the top of my head) that all personal fouls get a modifier; a "plain" technical does not.

So, your question above is obvious -- it was and Intentional Technical foul and should be penalized as such (it was not an Intentional Personal) foul.

Do you think for a first year official that that's a lot of information? I would tell the first year official in this case; Contact occurred during dead ball=It's either technical, or it's nothing. Why get into all the other degrees? I personally wouldn't. I don't think that makes me wrong, and if you want to explain all the different types, you are not wrong either.

But in the play where there's a push during a dead ball, If you decide it can't be ignored, it's going to be a technical (not stating the type). Two free throws for any member on the floor of the offended team. Ball out at division line, opposite the table.

And I know I'm not using correct verbage, but in my head I use "intentional procedure" and "technical procedure".

"Intentional procedure"-The player fouled shoots, ball out of bounds at the point of interruption.

"Technical procedure"-Two free throws for any member, ball out at division line.

In his original post;Technical foul. Follow "Technical procedure"

Would I be wrong in my game to call a technical on player who shoved, award 2 free throws to any member on the floor, and put the ball in at division line?

Shooter14:

No, I do not think that is a lot of information for a first year official. I taught the OhioHSAA mandatory new officials' course for ten years and drilled into the new officials that Rule 4 is the most important rule in the book.

MTD, Sr.

You need to get into the "degrees" because it might be flagrant. There are at least three choices -- nothing (in terms of a penalty), Intentional Technical and Flagrant Technical.

You can use what ever verbiage you want, but just calling it "intentional" and not "intentional personal" is what leads to all the confusion.

Am I wrong in the above situation?

I, myself know the degrees to which personal and technical fouls can be. I just thought it was easier to remember the procedures for the way I stated it for a new official.

Live ball contact=INTENTIONAL, Live ball anything else or dead ball anything=TECHNICAL. If either one are bad enough where you have to toss someone, add a FLAGRANT to the beginning. If not, then don't. Then follow the correct ways to penalize intentionals (personal or flagrant) and technicals .(personal, flagrant, administrative, bench, substitute, whatever)

You guys have been around longer and probably know more than me so I won't keep at it but this just seems so simple to me.

And MTD I'm not doubting you know the most important things to drill. But if I were training first year guys I would want them to know the most misunderstood basketball rules, how to handle coaches, and proper mechanics. Not just the signals, but where to be on the floor and when. But we come from different areas so maybe guys start with more of that knowledge where you are from, who knows.

There's no such thing as an intentional flagrant foul or a technical personal foul

Don't have my book on me. Flagrant personal, I'm not even sure? And that's why I said "whatever" in the list of technicals I was giving because I don't have a book to reference. Sorry I'm not defining the types of personal fouls and tecnhicals correctly. Obviously I need to refresh myself with the terms by looking in the book. But I assure you I know the procedures for when any type of foul happens on the floor.

Please tell me if I'm wrong on this original post; Player shoved during DEAD BALL. Technical foul, two shots by any team member on the floor. Ball out at division line. It was during a dead ball, so it's a technical, it's that simple to me.

You can continue to say I'm wrong, and that's fine. Maybe I am. Will someone please explain a case where I could go wrong in a game with the following logic:

Intentional: Live Ball Contact
Technical: Live Ball unsporting, dead ball anything.

Is there a case where I go by those basics that I would mess up during a game? Meaning I administer the penalties wrong. I would NEVER call live ball contact a technical, and I would NEVER call dead ball contact Intentional (personal or whatever).

Yes.

A sub can be brought in to shoot the free throws.

Thanks for your response. I would have messed up if the coach tried to sub.

I think it's best to learn and use the proper terms. In an earlier post you said your "intentional procedure" was 2 shots and ball at point of interruption. Factually, it is the same thing but you are using terminology that applies in other situations. POI. Intentional foul is 2 shots and ball out at spot nearest the foul.

The rules are a puzzle. Their connected and intertwined etc. Personally, I think using other terms has potential to lead to confusion.

I always tell new officials (and vets also) to use rule book terminology when discussing officiating amongst ourselves or when talking to coaches.

[QUOTE=BadNewsRef;992651]I always tell new officials (and vets also) to use rule book terminology when discussing officiating amongst ourselves or when talking to coaches.[/

Yes. I wish I could say it better but what we learn in one rule can apply to many other situations. A change in terms might help you understand one situation better but cause a screwup in another....

While the correct terminology may not seem important now, not using the correct terminology now could lead to issues down the road in your career. So you might as well learn it right the first time.

The reason this matters is that POI is often times not the spot nearest where the foul occurred. If it's an off-ball foul, for example, or a foul in the midst of a successful shot attempt. POI can be quite different than the spot nearest where the foul occurred.

Yes, i agree and would say most of the time it is different.