I go to the table issue the Flagrant Technical Foul, because the player looked right at him and then nailed him,
both free throws were made
Team B scored to tie it and we went to overtime.
Team A came from behind in overtime to win by 5 points 70 - 65,
Team A coach had no problem with the call it was one of those where everyone in the gym saw it happen because it was the only action going on on the floor at the time.

The game had approximately 55 fouls w/two technicals including this one.
5 players fouled out.

NFHS rule 4-19-3 says "An intentional foul is a personal or <b>technical</b> foul......".

NFHS rule 4-19-4 says "A technical foul is an <b>intentional</b> or flagrant <b>contact</b> foul while the ball is <b>dead</b>....."

I think we might be a little too technical here. My point was in judging flagrant or not.

__________________
Long live David Stern...

Damm, those pesky rules terms. Geez, Bob.

While you're correct that NCAA-W doesn't have an intentional technical foul, you can still call a "regular" technical foul in this situation:


Rule 10-7:
Art. 3. (Women) A direct technical foul is also a non-flagrant foul by any
player that involves contact or causes contact with an opponent while the
ball is dead.

Am I right in saying that there is no difference in administration for a technical foul and an intentional technical foul in NFHS, but in NCAA for a technical foul it's 2 shots and POI but an intentional technical foul is 2 shots and ball at division line?

I guess my point earlier was that there really isn't a difference between a technical or intentional technical in NFHS. But I could be wrong here again too.

You're right. The only difference is that the only technical you can have for contact is the intentional technical during a dead ball.
But you're right, there's no difference in NFHS in the administration.

How can you have more time remaining that what you started the half with?:confused:

I hope that clears up your question. :)

Nice pun.

Then you need to use words that indicate that is what you are trying to convey.

I don't mean to make this personal, but more than once you have used a phrase, been called on it, and then the subsequent discussion makes it seem as if you "misquoted yourself." And, since, imo, your rules knowledge is suspect, it's hard to tell which is which.

So, in this thread, rather than your saying "I would just call a technical" you should have said, "I would have delayed making the ball live and admonished the players" (or something like that).

Yep, your explanation and my 4th cup of coffee cleared it up.:D

Point taken and thanks for the English lesson. I keep forgetting. I keep thinking this is a public forum but really it isn't. Everytime someone from the general public comes out here, their opinions are attacked on a personal level and then asked to leave.

I think too much emphasis is put on who is saying it and not what is being said. A problem I noticed this culture tends to have. It's not about what is said but more who said it. I always like the movie where the president of the company takes a job at the lower level so that he can get to know the people from the ground up. It's amazing what you learn about people in a setting like this. For ex: you learn who the people are that have personal agendas, who are 2-faced, that are out for their own. You learn who you can trust and who you can't. Then a miracle happens and you meet a honest person who treats everyone the same, who respects everyone he/she meets. These are the type of people you want running your company.

No, this is really not a public forum because the general public is not welcome here. It is a private forum with a public interface. The motto here is shoot the messenger, first, and then ask questions. Kind of goes to your 2nd paragraph, wouldn't you say Bob.

It's true that some posters are given the "benefit of the doubt" while others are not. That's based on the individual's posting history.

It's equally true that a statment such as "I would call a regular (neither Intentional nor Flagrant) Technical" during a dead ball would quickly get corrected no matter who said it.

OS:

You still do not get the point that. This is an open forum. Basketball officials, coaches, players, fans, and officials that do not officiate basketball but do officiate other sports read this forum. The basketball officials have a professional obligatioin to use the correct terminology and quote the correct rules and casebook plays so that the non-basketball officials who read and sometimes post in this forum can benefit from reading threads in this forum. You have been told many times in the past the importance of using correct terminology and you still refuse to do so. Please get with the program.

MTD, Sr.

It's not that I refuse. I'm just not a scholar in the art of rule knowledge. For that I apologize, but I refuse to accept personal insults simply because you disagree or you don't like the way I said it. As bad as I am perceived by some of the others, is as bad as some of the other members are in unethical conduct on this board. Trying to teach someone by insulting them doesn't work for everyone. It may work on those that are less committed, but not for everyone.