How would you handle?? - Page 3

Adam · #31 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 10, 2005, 04:05pm

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells
I think the big question that everyone seems to be dancing around is this.
In NFHS, is there such an animal as an "intentional technical foul?"
I don't recall reading about it, and I have never seen one issued.
The 2nd question, if there is one, why?
There is literally no difference in penalties. 2 shots by any shooter and ball at division line.

Suppose you don't have the IT foul.

Suppose you have contact that's not flagrant, but is worthy of a foul, during a dead ball.

What are you going to call?

A technical foul.

Fouls under 4-19-5a,b,c,d,f do not involve contact.

Fouls under 4-19-5c are ITs or FTs. That's the case presented above. If you didn't have an IT, and it wasn't an FT, you'd have nothing to call. So, we can't just drop the IT. Changing the definition of T to include contact while the ball is dead would be worse, imho.

Now this makes sense. Thanks.

blindzebra · #32 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 10, 2005, 04:13pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Somebody, anybody:

Please tell BZ to take a Valium and go back and read my posts in this thread.

MTD, Sr.

BZ:

Go back and read your first post. You made a statement that was not correct. Now read the rest of my posts. I have answered your question like I said I would and gave you an example of an intentional foul where no contact is involved. Of course the intentional foul has to be a technical foul if no contact is involved. But read your first post, you stated, and I quote you once again: "An intentional foul may or may not be a technical foul, but is ALWAYS a contact foul, 4-19-3." That is not a true statement.

MTD, Sr.

Let's also re-read 4-19-3. The first 9 words are interesting.

An intentional foul is a PERSONAL or technical foul...

Now let's look at 4-19-1, a PERSONAL foul is a player foul which involves illegal CONTACT.

That sure seems to say that an intentional foul NEEDS to have contact.

No, it doesn't by the definitions you just gave. It leaves open the possibility of a Intentional Technical foul, which does not have to involve contact.

What does OR mean?

An intentional foul is a LIVE ball personal foul. A live ball non-contact foul is an intentional TECHNICAL foul. Dead ball contact is an intentional or flagrant TECHNICAL foul.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #33 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 10, 2005, 06:41pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Somebody, anybody:

Please tell BZ to take a Valium and go back and read my posts in this thread.

MTD, Sr.

BZ:

Go back and read your first post. You made a statement that was not correct. Now read the rest of my posts. I have answered your question like I said I would and gave you an example of an intentional foul where no contact is involved. Of course the intentional foul has to be a technical foul if no contact is involved. But read your first post, you stated, and I quote you once again: "An intentional foul may or may not be a technical foul, but is ALWAYS a contact foul, 4-19-3." That is not a true statement.

MTD, Sr.

Let's also re-read 4-19-3. The first 9 words are interesting.

An intentional foul is a PERSONAL or technical foul...

Now let's look at 4-19-1, a PERSONAL foul is a player foul which involves illegal CONTACT.

That sure seems to say that an intentional foul NEEDS to have contact.

No, it doesn't by the definitions you just gave. It leaves open the possibility of a Intentional Technical foul, which does not have to involve contact.

Snaqwells:

Your go to the head of the class for your astute observation. That is why Rule 4 is the most important rule in both the NFHS and NCAA rules books.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Jan 10th, 2005 at 06:53 PM]

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #34 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 10, 2005, 06:52pm

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Snaqwells

Quote:

Originally posted by blindzebra

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Somebody, anybody:

Please tell BZ to take a Valium and go back and read my posts in this thread.

MTD, Sr.

BZ:

Go back and read your first post. You made a statement that was not correct. Now read the rest of my posts. I have answered your question like I said I would and gave you an example of an intentional foul where no contact is involved. Of course the intentional foul has to be a technical foul if no contact is involved. But read your first post, you stated, and I quote you once again: "An intentional foul may or may not be a technical foul, but is ALWAYS a contact foul, 4-19-3." That is not a true statement.

MTD, Sr.

Let's also re-read 4-19-3. The first 9 words are interesting.

An intentional foul is a PERSONAL or technical foul...

Now let's look at 4-19-1, a PERSONAL foul is a player foul which involves illegal CONTACT.

That sure seems to say that an intentional foul NEEDS to have contact.

No, it doesn't by the definitions you just gave. It leaves open the possibility of a Intentional Technical foul, which does not have to involve contact.

What does OR mean?

An intentional foul is a LIVE ball personal foul. A live ball non-contact foul is an intentional TECHNICAL foul. Dead ball contact is an intentional or flagrant TECHNICAL foul.

BZ:

NFHS R4-S19 tells us that contact fouls that occur while the ball is live are personal fouls, and that contact fouls that occur while the ball is dead or non-contact fouls that occur whether the ball is dead or live are technical fouls.

NFHS R4-S19-A3 defines what is an intentional foul.

Depending upon whether the ball was live or dead and whether there was contact or not at the time of the foul determines whether the foul is personal or technical.

Now once more, take a deep breathe, get out a good bottle of Asti Spumonti and re-read my posts in this thread.

MTD, Sr.

TravelinMan · #35 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 10, 2005, 08:30pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
With six seconds left in overtime we have dÃ©jÃ* vu all over again, only this time the score is tied. And when A1 (who is about 5Â’-04Â” tall) attempts to throw her baseball pass, Coach B (who is about 6Â’-02Â” tall) jumps up in front of A1 preventing her from throwing the ball to a wide open A2 who has no defender between her and Team AÂ’s basket.

You can use whatever linguistic gymnastics you want, this is "a travesty" and automatic forfeit in my book.

Juulie:

Daryl is a very veteran H.S. and college official. For years he was the top evaluator of women's officials in Div. I conference. His call was the correct call. This was not an act that called for the game to be forfeited.

MTD, Sr.

Juulie, didn't you know this the infamous Daryl? He has a brother named Daryl and another brother named Daryl.

TravelinMan · #36 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 10, 2005, 08:31pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
With six seconds left in overtime we have dÃ©jÃ* vu all over again, only this time the score is tied. And when A1 (who is about 5Â’-04Â” tall) attempts to throw her baseball pass, Coach B (who is about 6Â’-02Â” tall) jumps up in front of A1 preventing her from throwing the ball to a wide open A2 who has no defender between her and Team AÂ’s basket.

You can use whatever linguistic gymnastics you want, this is "a travesty" and automatic forfeit in my book.

Juulie:

Daryl is a very veteran H.S. and college official. For years he was the top evaluator of women's officials in Div. I conference. His call was the correct call. This was not an act that called for the game to be forfeited.

MTD, Sr.

Juulie, shame on you! Didn't you know this the infamous Daryl? He has a brother named Daryl and another brother named Daryl.

rainmaker · #37 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 10, 2005, 11:00pm

Quote:

Originally posted by TravelinMan

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
With six seconds left in overtime we have dÃ©jÃ* vu all over again, only this time the score is tied. And when A1 (who is about 5Â’-04Â” tall) attempts to throw her baseball pass, Coach B (who is about 6Â’-02Â” tall) jumps up in front of A1 preventing her from throwing the ball to a wide open A2 who has no defender between her and Team AÂ’s basket.

You can use whatever linguistic gymnastics you want, this is "a travesty" and automatic forfeit in my book.

Juulie:

Daryl is a very veteran H.S. and college official. For years he was the top evaluator of women's officials in Div. I conference. His call was the correct call. This was not an act that called for the game to be forfeited.

MTD, Sr.

Juulie, didn't you know this the infamous Daryl? He has a brother named Daryl and another brother named Daryl.

Quote:

Originally posted by TravelinMan

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by rainmaker

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
With six seconds left in overtime we have dÃ©jÃ* vu all over again, only this time the score is tied. And when A1 (who is about 5Â’-04Â” tall) attempts to throw her baseball pass, Coach B (who is about 6Â’-02Â” tall) jumps up in front of A1 preventing her from throwing the ball to a wide open A2 who has no defender between her and Team AÂ’s basket.

You can use whatever linguistic gymnastics you want, this is "a travesty" and automatic forfeit in my book.

Juulie:

Daryl is a very veteran H.S. and college official. For years he was the top evaluator of women's officials in Div. I conference. His call was the correct call. This was not an act that called for the game to be forfeited.

MTD, Sr.

Juulie, shame on you! Didn't you know this the infamous Daryl? He has a brother named Daryl and another brother named Daryl.

Okay, okay, I get the point!!

So how's things, Jack? Haven't seen you around for a while...

TravelinMan · #38 (**permalink**) Mon Jan 10, 2005, 11:35pm

Juulie, busy schedule like all of you I am sure. Been mostly lurking but at least I get to read the always interesting and animated discussions. Promise to be less of a voyeur and more of a participant.

Daryl H. Long · #39 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 11, 2005, 01:06am

Since I have been so magnificently praised by MTD I shall reply. You can tell it is really me because my other brother Daryl lies.

Intentional Technical foul? Technical foul?

A careful reading of the rules shows such a thing can exist as an Intentional Technical Foul...but who really cares? Under the current rules where ALL technical fouls carry a two shot penalty and ball OB at DL opposite table there is no NEED to determine if Intentional or not. SAME penalty either way.

Put "Flagrant" in front of technical foul and it does matter. ADDITIONAL penalty is required.

In the play MTD cited the only real decision I had to make was to call it a Flagrant Technical or Not. My gut instinct said no. If Juulie was my partner in the game and she called it flagrant I would back her 100% But not forfeit.

I reported the foul to the bench as an Unsporting Technical foul on the coach. (By the way, my partner got the coach with technical #2 a few seconds later. To make matters worse, after the game the parents of the coach's team made him go back out onto the floor and offer a public apology for his actions).

Now that we have this new found information, let's report every technical foul we call from this point on as an Intentional...including all Intentional Flagrant Technical Fouls. Or should that be Flagrant intentional Technical foul? HMMM...to much to contemplate at such a late hour.

rainmaker · #40 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 11, 2005, 09:42am

Quote:

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
In the play MTD cited the only real decision I had to make was to call it a Flagrant Technical or Not. My gut instinct said no. If Juulie was my partner in the game and she called it flagrant I would back her 100% But not forfeit.

Daryl --

Thanks for spelling forfeit correcctly. That's not something a person sees every day!

I'm sure what you did was just fine. I'm glad the coach got tossed, and that the parents held him to some kind of public accountability. If I'd have been a parent of one of his players, he'd have been strung up by his onions after that. (That's the non-Quaker gene peeking up through the sod). To me this coach was making a mockery of the situation. It was so over-the-top that I would think he had completely lost his mind. But you were there, you handled it. By the way A did win, didn't they?

Daryl H. Long · #41 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 11, 2005, 06:47pm

Juulie,

Yes. A won.

(This is my shortest post ever but don't get used to it.)