What is the proper technical foul to administer in this situation.

Team A player who has inside position on FT lane and Team B player who has next lane position are jawing at one another in a manner that cannot be heard out loud. On shot and block out attempt Team A player (inside) winds up and drills Team B with an elbow to the ribs.

I give a personal T, two shots and ball out of bounds. Should this be a flagrant T though?

Well, there is no such animal as a personal technical foul. It's gotta be a sub-species of either a personal foul or a technical foul.

If it happened "on the shot", the ball was live. You cannot have a technical foul, by definition, for live ball contact. It has to be a personal foul of some kind iow; it can't be a technical foul, by rule. Your choices are a personal foul, an intentional personal foul, or a flagrant personal foul. If you thought the elbow was a deliberate attempt to injure, then a flagrant personal foul might be appropriate. If you felt that the act was deliberate but not necessarily meant to injure, then an intentional personal foul is probably appropriate. Judgement call-- your choice.

What gets what then
 

For either one then what penalties are administered. Flagrant personal and intentional personal?

Re: What gets what then
 

The only real difference between flagrant and intentional personal fouls is that there is always a player ejection with a flagrant foul.

For both an intentional or flagrant personal foul:
1) the foul would count towards the team A bonus.
2) the A player fouled would have 2 free throws with the lanes cleared.
3) team A would get a designated-spot throw-in at the out-of-bounds spot closest to where the foul occurred.

As I said, the player would be ejected also if the foul was ruled flagrant.

Dumb question...

Is a flagrant really from spot closest tot he foul? I thought it was from the division line.

(Sorry for not knowing this... I have never had to issue a flagrant because I use game management techniques. ;))

Personal...at spot. Technical...at division line. It doesn't matter if it is flagrant, intentional, etc.

So, in your opinion the resulting contact was not severe enough for an ejection?

Hardly ever disagree with JR, but I think that you saw an intimidating act and you assessed a technical for it. Good call. Doesn't make sense to let a player "wind up and drill" and just call a common or intentional foul just because contact occurred at the end of the intimidating act. I don't think that it is the spirit and intent of the that rule (which says that you can't have a technical foul if contact occurs during a live ball) to prevent the official from taking care of business when he sees an act meant to intimidate verses an act meant to injure (which is your flagrant). In your situation, ignore the contact and penalize the intimidating act.

This is my opinion only and is formed on my interpretation of the "spirit and intent" latitude afforded all officials.

Mulk

Bad brain fart on my part! Thanks.

Ron, language right outa the rule book definitions in R4-19:

-<b>ART. 1</b> A <b>personal</b> foul is a player foul which involves <b>illegal contact</b> with an opponent while the ball is <b>live</b>.
- <b>ART. 5</b> A technical foul is:
(b) a <b>noncontact</b> foul by a player.
(c) an intentional or flagrant contact foul <b>while the ball is dead</b>, except a foul by an airborne player.
-<b>ART. 3:</b> A foul shall also be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes <b>excessive contact</b> with an opponent.
-<b>ART. 4</b> A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature. If <b>personal</b>, it <b>involves</b>, but is not limited to <b>violent contact</b> such as striking, kicking or kneeing. If <b>technical</b>, it involves <b>dead-ball contact</b>...

It doesn't matter what either of us thinks the purpose and intent of the rules should be either. The FED couldn't have written these particular definitions any clearer. You cannot, by rule, call a technical foul of any kind for live-ball illegal contact. Depending on how bad you judge the elbow to be, the <b>only</b> choices you have are a personal foul, an intentional personal foul or a flagrant personal foul. An intentional personal foul sends the same message as a "T" imo. And if you judged it as being a flagrant act, there's really no difference in the outcome between calling a flagrant personal foul or a flagrant technical foul- except for where the throw-in would be.

The technical is not for the contact. It is for the intimidating act that came first. We had a 5 page post last year on this very topic and I thought that I swung your opinion on this. Maybe not. If you remember, I think the deal breaker was the poke in the chest during a live ball. Ignore the contact and penalize the intimidating act.

I don't think that the rule is that clear on prohibiting assessing a T for an intimidating act preceding contact. If the elbow had missed, it would have been ok, by rule, to call a T? But, if the elbow connects, you can only call an intentional, flagrant or common foul? Finally, not all acts or conduct can be listed that might lead to a technical foul. I do believe the rules do allow the official to recognize intimidating acts, not listed, and to rule on them.

At any rate, an intentional foul does not carry the same weight as a T - 2 of those and you are gone and in Ga., you are gone for 2 more games. Furthermore, an intentional foul is setting a precedence for the rest of the game on intimidating acts. Once you allow A1 to only get a foul, he has 4 more times to get away with this. What about B1? A6? B6? You will be reffing your *** off.

One problem that I think that I have in my argument is that I can't explain the types of plays that I am talking about here. But the 2 that come to mind is "bowing up" against each other during a live ball and poking someone in the chest during a live ball. Another is the jab or shot with the elbow, not major enough to warrant an ejection but will lead to escalation if not stopped. These are the kinds of acts that also have contact that need a T, not an intentional. Again, this is my opinion.

Bottom line - if I see an act clearly designed to intimidate or instigate, followed by slight contact during a live ball, I am calling a T. We'll just have to disagree on this.

Mulk

JR - double check my logic on this please...on a free throw, the ball becomes dead when the shot is made or it is obvious the shot will miss. So if (and it's an if since the OP didn't say) the first shot has gone thru or has bounced off the rim and isn't going in, then we can have a T for this elbow, correct? If this is a HS game, they can't be in there "for the block out" until the ball hits anyway, so we could have a T in this situation...

You're logic is almost flawless, as usual. Well, except for the sports teams you follow. We gotta do a little work with that(Lord knows). As you said above, if it's dead ball contact after the FT ends, then you most certainly could have either an intentional or a flagrant technical foul(but not a regular ol' "T"). The rules back that up too- as you well know.

Rule 4-19-5(c)- " A technical foul is an intentional or flagrant <b>contact</b> foul while the ball is <b>dead</b>".

However (you knew that there would be a "however", didn't you? :D), the OP <b>did</b> say iirc. In the original post, dprice stated that it was "<b>on</b> shot and block-out attempt". Note- "on the shot"-- not "after the shot". I think that I referred to that way back in my first post; I was considering the ball "live" because of that verbiage.

Ya but (you knew there would be a but in here - or is that butt)...in a HS game, there is a VERY good chance that we could hit the little sucker with a T in the original situation since they can't be in the lane blocking out until the ball hits the rim...if it goes thru with a nice little "swish" sound, or if it hits and bounce takes it away from rim, then it's dead and so we could, COULD mind you, pull off calling a T...

And what's wrong with the teams I root for? Just cause they always seem to implode when it really matters the most doesn't mean they aren't fun to watch...dang it, now you got me thinking about that Super Bowl again. Dan, where's the picture - I need it again.

And what's wrong with the teams I root for? Just cause they always seem to implode when it really matters the most doesn't mean they aren't fun to watch...dang it, now you got me thinking about that Super Bowl again. Dan, where's the picture - I need it again. [/B][/QUOTE]Do you mean the picture showing a typical Seattle fan watching <b>any</b> of his teams?
http://www.forumspile.com/WTF-Orangutan.jpg
Almost time for a haircut, Rocky....