I was asked this question by a fellow official in my association about this situation which happened earlier today.

Major Bantom Boys (grade 8).

A1 and B1 both have control of the ball, and a held ball is called, official runs in blowing the whistle, niether player has let go of the ball, when A1 whips the ball around and B1 with it. The official calls an intentional technical foul.

In my opinion, an intentional foul cannot be called because there was no contact between the 2 players, however, I would be inclined to call an unsporting T or a flagerant unsporting T, depending on what happened. If I had seen the play in question, I might have a more definitive answer on that one. But for sure I would call some degree of unsporting T. Is this the proper call, or is there something else that should be called, or should we have no call??

double foul/double tech
 

not knowing the situation on the floor...was it just after the whistle or in the mind of the offical did they have a chance to let it up...if they just got carried away in the moment then i would double foul, ap arrow controls...if it was deemed confontational, then double tech ap arrows control...both kids get the message...next time you're outta here.

Under NFHS and NCAA rules, a technical foul can be one of three types: 1) A TF that was neither intentional nor flagrant; 2) A TF that was intentional; or 3) A TF that was flagrant. At one time deciding whether a TF is either a (1) or a (2) was important because the penalty for a type (1) was that only one free throw was awarded instead of two free throws for types (2) or (3). Since two free throws are now awarded for all TF's, declaring whether a TF is a (1) or (2) is only to clarify to a coach that his player's actions come under the definition of an intentional foul.

I do not doubt that B1's actions were probably unsportsmanlike, but probably also fit the definition of an intentional foul, because there is no reason that an unsportsmanlike technical foul cannot be intentional.

Remember an intentional foul can be either personal or technical and all fouls that are committed while the ball is dead (excluding fouls by an airborne player) are technical fouls. B1's foul was committed while the ball was dead.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Jan 8th, 2005 at 11:22 PM]

Similar Situation
 

A couple years back in a local 8th grade tournament, I had a nearly identical situation. Under a minute left in a closely contested game. A1 & B1 were wrestling the ball from each other as I "closed-in" making several solid blasts on my fox-40.

When I was within 3 feet of the players, I began to verbalize in a firm tone "Easy, Easy, Easy." The wrestling stopped, but both players still held the ball. After the initial action halted, A1 gives another solid yank of the ball. He then reverses his pull and throws an elbow and makes solid contact with B1's chest.

Based on the fact that this was contact during a dead ball situation, I did what I assumed was correct (My rules knowledge was not as thorough as it is now), I immediately assess a T for the unsporting act and A1Â’s coach (father of A1; former BB official, lost his certification due to the next fact; renowned hothead) goes bananas. My partner has a better rapport with raging coach and manages to step in and de-escalate the situation. The game ends without further incident. Team A collapsed and lost falling away.


In hindsight, I could have (and probably should have) assessed a flagrant T.

Re: double foul/double tech
 

I don't see why this would be double!

Did anyone see a similar sitch, without the throwing the other player in a college game on TV today? ref had to wrestle the ball away from the players, neither of whom was letting go. Weird.

It wouldn't have been a double, because the B player was just holding onto the ball, not trying to grab it or move.


But the big question that still hasn't recieved an answer yet is, Can you have an intentional foul without contact??

R4-10-3
 

Ref18:

Review the definition of an intentional foul. According to my interpretation, contact has to occur in order to assess an intentional foul.

In your situation, I would stay with the T for unsporting act, but do not have a major issue with assessing it as an intentional because the offended team is getting nearly the same penalty/reward for the opponent's action.

Correct me if I'm wrong
 

So a held ball has been called. Ball is dead.

Player want to show his strength by getting the ball and slings the other player around by still pulling on the ball.

Official now calls Technical.

Held ball call is now ignored - AP arrow is not changed.

Technical foul is administered and offended team gets ball at division line.

Correct?

The ball was DEAD, so it was not an intentional foul, it was a TECHNICAL foul, and it can be a T with or WITHOUT contact.

An intentional foul may or may not be a technical foul, but is ALWAYS a contact foul, 4-19-3.

As described you have an unsporting T, 10-4-7 and not 10-4-8.

Re: Correct me if I'm wrong
 

Correct, the arrow is not switched because we have not ended an AP throw in, the throw in will be part of the T penalty.

only an tech?
 

i stand corrected on the ap arrow not changing direction...forgot about the held ball...after the ball becomes dead ins't there any other way of handling this situation without (penalizing) with a tech? i also assumed that both players had time to let the ball go, therefore both are equally at fault.

BZ:

Becareful when using the word "ALWAYS." No where in NFHS R4-S19-A3 (nor in the NCAA Rules for that matter) does it say that contact must occur for a foul to be intentional. A foul that "neutralize[s] an opponent's obvious advantageous position" is an intentional foul.

Keeping in mind that technical fouls can be intentional too (but if one reads my post in this thread of Jan. 08/Sat.(11:22pmEST), 2005, one will see that the penalty for an intentional foul is no more severe than for a technical foul that is neither intentional nor flagrant, but I digress) there are situations where a technical foul where no contact is involved can be intentional.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Jan 10th, 2005 at 12:03 AM]

Re: Re: double foul/double tech
 

not in real time, but had game taped, IL v PU...did take a while to get the ball back...

Go Illini!!

Name a situation during a LIVE ball where you have an intentional foul, without contact, that BY RULE is not penalized as a technical foul?

Article 3 is referring to acts like intentionally delaying to stop the clock at the end of a game, which is an intentional TECHNICAL foul.

BZ:

You didn't read my two posts in this thread very carefully. First, read NFHS R4-S19-A3, and then re-read my two posts. After you have done that I will post a real situation where an intentional techncial foul occured during a live ball and there was no contact involved.

MTD, Sr.

Go back and read what I said. I could swear I used the words INTENTIONAL TECHNICAL FOUL.

So this is your way of saying there is no situation where the rule book gives a penalty of an INTENTIONAL foul without contact.

Nice to see you avoid answering EVERY time you are cornered.

I'll sum it up for you. An intentional foul, with 2 shots and the ball at the spot nearest the foul, is a contact foul during a LIVE ball. A non-contact intentional foul during a LIVE ball is a TECHNICAL foul, with 2 shots and the ball at the DL opposite the table. A contact foul during a DEAD ball is also a TECHNICAL foul that is either intentional or flagrant.

So I repeat, give us all a situation where we have an intentional foul penalty WITHOUT contact during a live ball.

BZ:

In your first post in this thread you stated that and I quote: “An intentional foul may or may not be a technical foul, but is ALWAYS a contact foul, 4-19-3.” I said that this is not a completely true statement. I stated in my response to your first post was that: “No where in NFHS R4-S19-A3 (nor in the NCAA Rules for that matter) does it say that contact must occur for a foul to be intentional.” I also stated that R4-S19-A3 also states that: “A foul that "neutralize[s] an opponent's obvious advantageous position" is an intentional foul.

You asked me to give an example of an intentional technical foul where no contact is involved. I will do better than give an example; I will relate an actual play that occurred during the 2003 YBOA GirlsÂ’ National Championship Tournament. I was not officiating in the game, because I was scheduled to officiate in the following game. The official who made the call is Daryl Long who has posted in this forum in the past.

The intentional technical foul occurred during a 13U Bracket Play game. Let me set the stage for you. As one sits at the ScorerÂ’s/TimerÂ’s Table, Team AÂ’ bench is to the right and Team BÂ’s bench is to the left. Team A was losing to Team B by two points with six seconds left in the fourth quarter. Team A had received a designated spot throw-in on the sideline in front of Team BÂ’s bench just to the left of the coaching box. Daryl was the Trail official. Team A set up in a line perpendicular to the sideline for its throw-in play; A1 was the player making the throw-in. The YBOA National Championship Tournaments are played using NFHS Rules and the coaching box. Coach B was sitting on his bench in the middle of what is his teamÂ’s coaching box. Daryl places the ball at A1Â’s disposal; A2 breaks for Team AÂ’ basket, and A1 hits A2 with a perfect baseball at the division line and A2 drives in for an uncontested layup. The buzzer sounds and the game goes into overtime.

With six seconds left in overtime we have déjÃ* vu all over again, only this time the score is tied. And when A1 (who is about 5Â’-04” tall) attempts to throw her baseball pass, Coach B (who is about 6Â’-02” 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. Daryl immediately put air in the whistle. Coach B has committed an intentional technical foul. What did Coach B do that was infraction of the rules? His actions “neutralize[d] an opponentÂ’s obvious advantageous position” as defined in NFHS R4-S19-A3.

No contact was involved but Coach BÂ’s actions were definitely intentional and therefore an illegal act and were definitely an intentional technical foul. You are incorrect when you state the R4-S19-A3 only pertains to acts meant to stop the game clock at the end of the game, it can also apply to contact away from the ball that do not have anything to do with stopping the game clock. An intentional foul also be excessive contact with an opponent. That is why I told you to go back and re-read R4-S19-A3; this rule contains more information than many people realize because the vast majority of the time it is used only when a team fouls to stop the clock.

MTD, Sr.

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

To heck with an intentional technical, I have a flagrant technical foul (at the very least).

If possible, I'll let A inbound the ball and call a delayed T. The second B touches the ball, whistle - A is getting 2 shots and the ball back.

As to a forfeit, I'd be pretty darn close to calling the game. Not sure if I would or not, though.

Thinks, you just proved me to be correct.

I asked you to show me a situation where we penalized for an INTENTIONAL foul when there is no contact, and you whip out War and Peace for a TECHNICAL.

Once again what I said is 100% correct, 4-19-3 talks about intentional acts. Contact during a LIVE ball is an INTENTIONAL foul, with a penalty of 2 FTs and the ball nearest the spot. Contact during a DEAD ball is an intentional or flagrant TECHNICAL foul, with a penalty of 2 shots and the ball at the DL opposite. Non-contact acts deemed intentional to disadvantage the opponent are also TECHNICAL fouls and carry that penalty.

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.

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.

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.

MTD says,"Of course an intentional foul has to be a TECHNICAL foul if there is NO CONTACT involved."

Which is EXACTLY the same thing as an intentional foul is always a contact foul, because WITHOUT IT, it is a TECHNICAL foul.

You NEVER answered ANYTHING! I asked, "Give us a situation where we penalize with an intentional foul penalty during a live ball without contact."

You gave us nothing but TECHNICAL foul penalties.

[Edited by blindzebra on Jan 10th, 2005 at 01:30 PM]

I agree. I'd have worded it differently. "Who cares?"

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?

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.:D

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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...

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. :)

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.

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?

Juulie,

Yes. A won.

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