I realized after I posted this that the free throw violation is for the foot only. I guess I need to go review my rules as regards breaking the various planes.

Yeah, there does seem to be a blind spot in the rules in this fairly narrow case. I would be shocked if the NFHS ever said it was intentional. The rule about ignoring dead ball fouls unless they are intentional or flagrant seems squarely aimed at play that continues on following a live ball becoming dead, not before the ball becomes live. How often do we really see an example like the ones we're theorizing about?

Oh, boolsh!t. You're not only saying that I'm incorrect; you're saying that the <b>rule</b> is incorrect.That rules citation simply says that you CAN call a contact technical foul during a dead ball. But you don't like that rule so let's ignore it. That's exactly why I refused to get involved in this stoopid conversation with you. All you're doing is complicating a simple damn call with your goofy personal rules interpretation.

Just another typical 10,000 word treatise composed of nuthin' but complete doo-doo. You're the king of obfuscation and bafflegab.

Lah me....:rolleyes:

Yeah, sure he is, but has anyone ever called him repuslive?

Nope, I'm saying that an official cannot do as you say and make such a call on a CONTACT play because the official deems the action unsporting. That was your advice and it is wrong. Under these circumstances (dead ball contact) a technical foul can only be called if the officials judges that the contact meets the NFHS definition of intentional or flagrant. There can be no other reason.

So name call all you want. You're still wrong.

Is that really bad acne?

And intellectually and philosophically, I still think that you're full of sh!t. :)

Continue the argument with yourself. You seem to be the only one around here that measures up to your lofty standards anyway.

Is that really the best you can do?

Unfortunately, that seems to be the case as Padgett refuses to share his meds. :(

I'm guessing you're better off (but not less annoying) without Padgett's meds.

I would attempt to answer that but I'm not sure what play you and Nevada are theorizing. I lost track.

It's the play where the kid with the repulsive acne gets smacked in the bafflegab, but during a dead ball. ;)

Let's look at that rule again.
I think the part I highlighted in red leaves room to call an unsporting foul even when contact is involved. In fact, I think it specifically applies to a situation when, prior to the ball becoming live, a player grabs an opponent to prevent him from moving or to "get in his head."

You mean he gave him the business? eeeeew!

No, you're thinking football.

At least it wasn't diving or swimming.