BTW, this is incorrect. This was an intentional foul for excessive contact, what you told the coach was wrong. Get the terminology right and you won't confuse yourself.

I think you are reading too much into what I am saying. I did not say you had to have a player going to the floor and going out bounds. I am saying that having a signal is not going to eliminate the reality that people will still disagree with a call like this and will point to the NF rulings on this.

Also this very same play is in the Simplified and Illustrated on page 47 and shown in two pictures. Also there is no reference to being out of bounds. So the issue of being out of bounds is not at all a factor as to why I am making this point. As a matter of fact I did not remember the “out of bounds” reference on this play. But if you are calling such a foul just because there was contact with the head or neck, then that will be seen by some as a stretch. If that is the case then there are a lot of intentional fouls we do not call. A signal is not going to change that fact.

Peace

Case plays sometimes just give you direction, not absolutes. I can envision intentional fouls for excessive contact that don't involve a player hitting the deck. An example would be a two-handed push off the ball with not enough contact to be called "flagrant". I can also envision players hitting the deck through contact where not even a foul was warranted.

Well, you could make that argument for every foul that is called in basketball. Your point is taken, though.

Just remember that the OP included a discussion with the coach about "why" this was an intentional foul. Even with a signal there is still going to be some debate on a call like this.

Peace

I'm not an O/S basher, but did you really say this? If this ain't the pot.....:D

This is why some of us just ignore him. ;)

Peace

My theory is that he's a top official just having fun on here, getting a rise out of everybody with a bunch of off the wall posts. :D

For his sake I hope so.

Peace

Doesn't the NBA have two levels of flagrant fouls - one that includes ejection and one that doesn't? Maybe we should consider this at lower levels.

I do not know all the details of the difference but yes they do. If you get so many Flagrant 1 fouls they can be suspended if they have so many of these types of fouls. Flagrant 2 fouls are an ejection from the game they are participating in. Not sure if there is an automatic suspension or what it is.

Peace

Perhaps the theory is that excessive contact requires intent. A player should know how hard he will contact his opponent. Therefore a hard foul has to have been intentionally hard.

Just a thought.

This is totally wrong. In the NBA you can get suspended for excessive contact and not even have a foul called on the play. I think the Flagrant 1 and 2 is kind of ridiculous. Anything that has flagrant in it, should mean ejection, period. Since I do not work in the NBA I don't have to sweat that.

The intentional foul in HS and college is being used correctly, imo. I will say the Indirect Technicals in NCAA is completely out of control. It is an intentional foul to hold somebody before the ball is inbounded, it is an intentional foul for excessive contact. To add to what JRut is saying, every I/F call is going to be debated by the receiving coach. Everyone that I have called the receiving coach disagreed with, 100 out of 100 times. I think the OP is at the point in his career where he is beginning to understand this rule. Yes, it covers 2 cases, but only one signal, that's a good thing. I am not in the boat of adding more signals, it is still an I/F, and I don't care how many different mechanic signals you add to it. Two shots and the ball back at the POI.

OS -While I am not in favor of adding more signals to the game -
Sifgnals are used to convey a message to the coaches, players, your partners, and fans as to what you have called.
So when a play grabs another player and the official gives the big "X" for intentional that is understood by all.
So now when you have a player chasing down another player on a breakaway and the defender blocks the shot but in the process wipes out the offensive player two rows into the stands and now you come up with an "X" based on excessive contact - people (and Dick Vitale, and Billy Packer) will say the foul was flagrant, and be confused when the player is not removed from the game because they are unaware of the excessive contact clause of the rule, and become confused?

The addition of a secondary signal would be effective in such cases.

as to your statement regarding Indirect Technicals being out of hand in 20 plus NCAA dates this year on the floor, 8 more as an alternate, plus 25 to 30HS or Prep-Scool games I was involved with not a one Intnetional Technical called, add another 100 pluss games watched and that number stays at 0.

The only one I have seen was last weekend when a player measured another up for an Elbow before the ball was at the disposal on an inbound play during an AAU game.
I do not see a trend in that direction can you back that up with some facts or stats?

I have the reason for this, nobody, I mean nobody wants to go there in the NCAA, because it's so complex. A better point might be, how many indirect technical fouls can you call in the NCAA and how many different penalities come in to play from this. Add to that, who is accessed what, and how many different technical fouls versus regular fouls, versus indirect fouls leads to an ejection.