Dead ball foul - diff. between intentional and technical
 

Looking for some clarification on proper procedure for a dead ball intentional foul. My understanding was that an intentional foul was two shots with the lane cleared and the ball put back at the point where the foul occurred.

After reviewing the definitions, my understanding is that a dead ball intentional is a technical. If that is the case, the penalty is different with regards to the placement of the ball after the two penalty shots (division-line throw in).

So what signal do we report to the table (intentional or technical) on a dead ball situation? If a dead ball intentional cannot be a personal foul (10.3.8) then are all dead ball fouls a technical?

4.19.3 An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul . . .

4.19.1 A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live…

4.19.5 A technical foul is:
a. A foul by a nonplayer
b. A noncontact foul by a player
c. An intentional or flagrant contact while the ball is dead, expect a foul by
an airborne shooter.
d. A direct technical . . .
e. An indirect technical . . .

10.3.8 Intentionally or flagrantly contacting an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is not a personal foul. Pen (Sec 3) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw in.

If you call an intentional technical foul (i.e., intentional dead-ball contact), then it is signalled and administered as a technical foul. Give the T signal, report it as a technical (I wouldn't say the word intentional at the table, you'd just confuse the scorer), and give any player(s) on the offended team 2 shots. The ball will then be inbounded at the division line.

Makes sense to me now. So the only situation an intentional foul could occur where you would use the mechanic given in the rules book would be during a live ball. Otherwise, it is a technical.

That's true for an intentional *personal* foul. The rest of your post discusses intentional *technical* fouls. There's no such thing as an intentional (no modifier) foul.

If it's intentional, shouldn't the person who got foul shot the free throws?

No, it's an intentional <b>technical</b> foul. Any player(s) can shoot either or both FT's. Rule 8-3.

What he said.

Remember - all fouls are either personal or technical. Flagrant, intentional, player-control, team-control, common, direct and indirect are all modifiers (some of which apply only to personal or only to technical fouls), which require the base personal or technical foul to begin with.

Is it the same in college? Rule 10, Sec 16, Art 1 seems somewhat vauge to me stating 2 FTs are awarded to "a player" of the offended team...... Am I to read that as "any player" can shoot the FTs?

Thanks.

Yes ANY player from the opposing team may shoot the FTs for a T in both NFHS and NCAA.

The NCAA handles technical fouls a bit differently from the NFHS. Players may be charged with indirect technical fouls in a college game. Only the Head Coach may be assessed that kind of foul in an NFHS game.

The penalty for an NCAA T is also different. The opponent is still awarded 2FTs, but only a few Ts (flagrant and intentional) also carry the awarding of the ball as well. Unsporting Ts are just 2FTs and the game resumes at the POI. Also one player from the opposing team must attempt BOTH FTs under NCAA rules. (NFHS allows two different players to try if the team so desires.)

Also indirect Ts on a player do not count towards his five for DQ.

Yes, and the "player" can be any tem member who is eligible to enter the game. In NCAA the same player must shoot both throws (unless sometning unusual like a DQ or an injury happens to that player). in FED, a different player can shoot the second throw.

Bob, I don't remember hearing this about FED - can you direct me to the relevant rule or casebook play? TIA.

NFHS rule 8-3.

OK, but that's not decisive, and what about case 8.2 COMMENT?

It's not only decisive, it's clear. Case book play 8.2 backs it up also.

Says you.

This rule as written does not state explicitly that one player may shoot the first FT for a T and that another player may shoot the other. The last sentence implies it, but implication is not decisive (nor, for that matter, clear).

This casebook comment implies that the two FT's for a T must be attempted by a single player, except in case of injury or disqualification.

This is the basis on which I originally questioned Bob's assertion that under NFHS rules it's permissible to have two different players shoot FT's for a T. That situation would be exceptional, not discretionary. And if that was what Bob originally meant, I don't see the difference from NCAA.