Idea for refined definition and/or new mechanic

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by OHIOBBREF

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.

let me add I do not recall a situation where one needed to be called either.

Originally Posted by Old School

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.

I have an end of season review and film session mid next week with another group of officials and I will bring this up - but IMO at the NCAA level if it needs to be called it is called.
The last thing that people worry about is technical fouls versus regular fouls, versus indirect fouls, or ejections.
I had a partner whack the conference commissioner in a game this year.
You do what you have to do.

[mcdanrd]

NFHS Rule 4-19-3 states: ... A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent. That seems to apply in this case.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

BTW, this is incorrect. This was an intentional foul for excessive contact, what you told the coach was wrong.

Actually, it is correct. "Intent" was not the reason for the intentional foul. That's all he told the coach. By rule, it's an intentional foul, but the reasoning had nothing to do with intent.

Originally Posted by Old School

Get the terminology right and you won't confuse yourself.

Really?