Intentional Technical Foul

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Not exactly sure where you're going with this, but the definition of a personal foul excludes all dead ball contact, unless an airborne shooter is involved.

Agreed, wasn't going there just comparing "intentional" technical to a "pushing" personal foul.....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Basically saying that "intentional technical" is semantics and is irrelevant the same way it is irrelevant whether you signal a "push" or a "block"...anybody ever signaled a "block" at the table when what really happened was a "push"? Did it make a bit of difference?

Fair enough, but you asked if it was actually a defined term. It is, but I would never signal the intentional part during a game.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Yes & he!! yes (if the coach knows his stuff).

So the coach was ok with the foul, but did not like the secondary signal so he/she jumped all over you? Guessing he/she didn't like the foul call so was going to jump you regardless of your secondary signal...point being the secondary signal is useful to indicate the nature of the foul, but it really doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things (administration, etc)...how many times have you given the incorrect one and just moved on?

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Fair enough, but you asked if it was actually a defined term. It is, but I would never signal the intentional part during a game.

Agreed after looking it up, just have never heard it used in that way...and my primary point was that you would never signal it which we agree on..

[dahoopref]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Actually, techincally, for HS, put ball back into play with a throw-in at the division line for the offended team; in NCAA, put the ball back into play at the POI, which was an endline throw-in for B after a made basket.

That would be VERY incorrect.

Pg 135 NCAA Rulebook 2008-09

RESUMPTION OF PLAY: For any technical foul(s), play shall resume
at the point of interruption except for a single intentional
or a single flagrant technical foul. For a single intentional
or a single flagrant technical foul, the ball shall be awarded
to the offended team at a designated spot at the division
line on either side of the playing court.

Originally Posted by slow whistle

So the coach was ok with the foul, but did not like the secondary signal so he/she jumped all over you? Guessing he/she didn't like the foul call so was going to jump you regardless of your secondary signal...point being the secondary signal is useful to indicate the nature of the foul, but it really doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things (administration, etc)...how many times have you given the incorrect one and just moved on?

First of all coaches don't "jump all over me" either we show a mutual respect & talk like men or they get put in check... plain & simple.

To answer your question, I had a coach say "how could that be push when he clearly blocked him?"

I've learned to give the correct signal for what actually happened since then.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

I understand what you are saying (and I think I am splitting hairs) - wouldn't it be a true statement though to say that you can equate an "intentional" technical to a "pushing" foul..describes the nature of the foul, but really what you have with a "pushing" foul is a personal foul by definition (for instance).

Wrong.

IF the push while the ball is live rises only to the level of a common foul, then the same push while the ball is dead would be ignored (that is, no penalty -- I'm sure the official would address the situation).

If the push while the ball is live rises to the leve of an intentional foul (and Intentional Personal foul), the the same push while the ball is dead would be an Intentional Technical foul.

Same as the above paragraph for Flagrant fouls.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

First of coaches don't "jump all over me" either we show a mutual respect & talk like men or they get put in check... plain & simple.

To answer your question, I had a coach say "how could that be push when he clearly blocked him?"

I've learned to give the correct signal for what actually happened since then.

Good grief, sorry if I offended your sensibilities by saying "jump all over me", it is a figure of speech. I'm not trying to argue with you all I am saying is that whether you give the correct secondary or not is irrelevant. Should you try to give the right one every time, of course good for you if you do it right every time, you shold strive to do so! If you give the "wrong" secondary from time to time does it matter? No! A) Many times no one can know which part of the contact you are signaling the foul for anyways (was it the hold or the push that happened afterwards? what if the hold and the push are simultaneous?) and B) The administration is identical

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Wrong.

IF the push while the ball is live rises only to the level of a common foul, then the same push while the ball is dead would be ignored (that is, no penalty -- I'm sure the official would address the situation).

If the push while the ball is live rises to the leve of an intentional foul (and Intentional Personal foul), the the same push while the ball is dead would be an Intentional Technical foul.

Same as the above paragraph for Flagrant fouls.

Agree with you Bob, I was not trying to address the nature of the fouls, only the structure of the definitions (ie a foul is primarily personal, secondarily a push) If we are to say that a foul is primarily intentional and secondarily technical then why don't we signal the primary part of it?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by dahoopref

That would be VERY incorrect.

Pg 135 NCAA Rulebook 2008-09

RESUMPTION OF PLAY: For any technical foul(s), play shall resume
at the point of interruption except for a single intentional
or a single flagrant technical foul. For a single intentional
or a single flagrant technical foul, the ball shall be awarded
to the offended team at a designated spot at the division
line on either side of the playing court.

Actually, it's only half incorrect, and I corrected myself in post #25. There is no "intentional technical" foul in NCAA-W, therefore, as this is simply a player/substitute technical foul in NCAA-W, the resumption of play (in NCAA-W) from the OP would be at the POI, which was a throw-in for team B after a made basket on the endline. I was only incorrect for NCAA-M.

[jevaque]

Flagrant Technical Foul Penalty (Women) 10-3.13-17 Penalty and 10-4.8 and 9 Penalty. For any single flagrant technical foul, the ball shall be awarded to the offended team at the point of interruption.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Might be a bit nitpicky, but does the term "intentional technical" even exist in NFHS? I know it does in NCAA, but NCAA tech rules are a lesson in and of themselves (and unnecessarily confusing IMO)...in Fed isn't it either administrative or player/coach, etc?

A technical foul in both NFHS and NCAA can occur, and term "intentional technical foul" use to be in the NFHS rule book. Back in the day when only intentional and flagrant TF's resulted in two (2) free throws being awarded and all other TF's resulted in one (1) free throws being awarded there was a very definite need for an official to distinguish between a non-flagrant TF which was not intentional and one that was intentional. It still exists in the NCAA because of putting the ball back into play situations.

MTD, Sr.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Agree with you Bob, I was not trying to address the nature of the fouls, only the structure of the definitions (ie a foul is primarily personal, secondarily a push) If we are to say that a foul is primarily intentional and secondarily technical then why don't we signal the primary part of it?

Because it's not "primarily personal, secondarily a push". It's primarily personal, secondarily common.