What is your call?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Depends upon whether or not the official believes that the contact was excessive or deliberate.

The action by A1 could warrant any of the following:
1. a verbal warning
2. an intentional technical foul
3. a flagrant technical foul

I think option 2 should be a technical foul, not an intentional technical, since there is no attempt to neutralize an obviously advantageous position (as defined in 4-19-3). You might make a case that the last sentence of that rule applies here, but since the ball is dead it would be a bad case. Not much at stake because the penalty is the same either way; but I know you eschew imprecision, Nevada .

So, according to 10-3-8 and Penalty (Section 3), intentional or flagrant contact in this context would be penalized with a technical foul unless the official judges it to be fighting, which would be a flagrant foul (10-3-9).

The wording of 10-3-8 seems odd to me, since you'd think that flagrant contact would merit a flagrant foul. Hm.

So the three options very slightly amended:

1. Contact not flagrant, intentional, nor fighting: verbal warning
2. Contact flagrant or intentional, but not fighting: technical foul
3. Contact amounts to fighting (see 4-18): flagrant technical foul

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I think option 2 should be a technical foul, not an intentional technical, since there is no attempt to neutralize an obviously advantageous position (as defined in 4-19-3).

Rule 4-19-5(c) doesn't allow your supposition. Contact fouls during a dead ball must be either intentional or flagrant, by definition( with the exception of a foul committed by an aiborne shooter).

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Rule 4-19-5(c) doesn't allow your supposition. Contact fouls during a dead ball must be either intentional or flagrant, by definition( with the exception of a foul committed by an aiborne shooter).

Actually, 4-19-5 is consistent with what I said, since all of its parts are defining 'technical foul', not 'intentional technical foul'. And your point about contact being either intentional, flagrant, or ignored is also consistent with what I said in my previous post (which agreed with the substance of Nevada's). So your citation here is beside the point.

I was mainly objecting to the term "intentional technical foul," which I don't see in the rule book. It is, however, in case 4.19.5, meaning just what you all say it does.

It is not a happy term: an intentional foul is one kind of foul, and a technical quite another. The term 'intentional technical foul' misleadingly suggests that the types might overlap. Moreover, there is no difference in penalty or application between a 'technical foul' and an 'intentional technical foul' in this context; there is a clear difference between a 'technical foul' and a 'flagrant technical foul' that justifies the terminological difference.

Still, the term is there, so you're right after all, regardless of whether I like the term.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Actually, 4-19-5 is consistent with what I said, since all of its parts are defining 'technical foul', not 'intentional technical foul'. And your point about contact being either intentional, flagrant, or ignored is also consistent with what I said in my previous post (which agreed with the substance of Nevada's). So your citation here is beside the point.

I was mainly objecting to the term "intentional technical foul," which I don't see in the rule book. It is, however, in case 4.19.5, meaning just what you all say it does.

It is not a happy term: an intentional foul is one kind of foul, and a technical quite another. The term 'intentional technical foul' misleadingly suggests that the types might overlap. Moreover, there is no difference in penalty or application between a 'technical foul' and an 'intentional technical foul' in this context; there is a clear difference between a 'technical foul' and a 'flagrant technical foul' that justifies the terminological difference.

Still, the term is there, so you're right after all, regardless of whether I like the term.

My man, don't fight it, just learn from it.
From what you wrote and I put in red, it seems that you are confusing the kinds of fouls.
The two main types of fouls are PERSONAL and TECHNICAL. All other labels are subcategories of those and can modify either one of the two main categories. For example, there is both an intentional personal foul and an intentional technical foul, just as there are double personal fouls and double technical fouls.
This is something that every official needs to understand, but many have great difficultly grasping.

PS Lastly, I'll add that at the NCAA level on the mens side there is a difference in the administration of an intentional technical foul (dead ball contact) and an unsporting technical foul (the normal T). The first one is two shots and the ball, while the latter is 2 shots and play is resumed at the POI. So knowing these specific terms can only help you as move up.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

1) So your citation here is beside the point.

2) was mainly objecting to the term "intentional technical foul," which I don't see in the rule book.

3) It is not a happy term: an intentional foul is one kind of foul, and a technical quite another.

1) My point was that your statement was wrong, by rule. The citation was used to back up my point. That rules citation made my point germane, relevant and true.

2) Try looking in rule 4-19-3---"An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul...."

3) That statement is still completely wrong. Again, both rules 4-19-3 and 4-19-5(c) state that you can have an intentional technical foul.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I was mainly objecting to the term "intentional technical foul," which I don't see in the rule book. It is, however, in case 4.19.5, meaning just what you all say it does.

It appears in this case play as well.

TECHNICAL FOUL CONTACT
10.3.8 SITUATION: B1 fouls A1 during an unsuccessful try. While the calling official is reporting the foul, A1 pushes B1 into another player. RULING: Intentional contact while the ball is dead constitutes an intentional technical foul. If other dead-ball contact is not intentional or flagrant, it should be ignored. The foul by A1 creates a false double-foul situation.

[btaylor64]

I believe this should be a dead ball technical foul. I'm not getting too technical about the technicals I'll leave that to the guys on here who are the rules gurus for HS. A live ball foul automatically killed the play and since it was dead ball contact that was too much to ignore a verbal warning is not going to suffice.

I have a question as well? Is there a difference in penalty administration b/w a non-contact T and a T with contact in the HS game?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

I have a question as well? Is there a difference in penalty administration b/w a non-contact T and a T with contact in the HS game?

Only if the contact is flagrant (in which case the penalty includes DQ).

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by btaylor64

Is there a difference in penalty administration b/w a non-contact T and a T with contact in the HS game?

Not at the HS level, but I noted the difference in NCAA Mens, which you are likely aware of, in post #12.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I think option 2 should be a technical foul, not an intentional technical,

Contact during a dead ball is ignored unless it's intentional or flagrant. And, any "normal" technical foul is for a non-contact situation.

So, Nevada had it right.

Still need to see the play -- pivoting from the feet / hips with the elbows out is not a "swinging the elbows" play.

[sallender]

All good points I must add!

I must add, there was nothing called on the second piece of activity!

I actually thought there was enough "activity" on the offensive players part to warrant the false double foul. I don't think the bloody nose was intentional. But "momma" up in the stands did! She came unglued and came down on the floor. Waving fingers and pointing to the officials and using language not warranted in bible school.

She was escorted out after they got her son cleaned up. Team A player went to the line for the bonus to a throng of boo's and comments. (Team A was the visitor).

This is one of those things that I know you condition yourself for, but how do you really handle what comes down afterwards.....

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

... but I know you eschew imprecision, Nevada .

I certainly do. Hope you learned something today.