How would you handle??

[ref18]

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??

[cloverdale]

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by ref18
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??

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]

[williebfree]

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 A1’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.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by cloverdale
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.

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.

[ref18]

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??

[williebfree]

Originally posted by ref18
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??

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.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

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?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by ref18
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??

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.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
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?

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.

[cloverdale]

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by blindzebra

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.

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]

[golfdesigner]

Originally posted by rainmaker

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.

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

Go Illini!!

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

BZ:

Becareful when using the word "ALWAYS." No were 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.

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by blindzebra

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.