Intentional Technical Foul

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jdmara

After a made basket by team A but before team B had the ball at their disposal, A12 turned to run up court and ran into B1. I put air into the whistle and signal an intentional foul.

If A12 "meant" to run into B1, then I agree with the IT foul; if B1 was "just in the way", then it was probably nothing.

Give the T signal only.

[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?

[Adam]

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?

Yes, the term does exist; and specifically addresses dead ball contact.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yes, the term does exist; and specifically addresses dead ball contact.

I just searched the fed rulebook and the term "intentional technical" only shows up in the NF vs. NCAA grid at the back on the NCAA side...still looking...never heard it used at sub-NCAA level, isn't it sort of redundant since there is no difference in penalty administration regardless of what the tech is for unless flagrant (other than the indirect side of things)?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

I just searched the fed rulebook and the term "intentional technical" only shows up in the NF vs. NCAA grid at the back on the NCAA side...still looking...never heard it used at sub-NCAA level, isn't it sort of redundant since there is no difference in penalty administration regardless of what the tech is for unless flagrant (other than the indirect side of things)?

4-19-5c (07-08 book)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

I just searched the fed rulebook and the term "intentional technical" only shows up in the NF vs. NCAA grid at the back on the NCAA side...still looking...never heard it used at sub-NCAA level, isn't it sort of redundant since there is no difference in penalty administration regardless of what the tech is for unless flagrant (other than the indirect side of things)?

No, it's not redundant.

1. Unsporting Ts do not have contact.
2. Intentional Ts are what you call when you have to call something for contact during a dead ball, but it's not flagrant.

You're right, the penalties are the same. Look under foul definitions, I believe, and you'll find the reference.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, it's not redundant.

1. Unsporting Ts do not have contact.
2. Intentional Ts are what you call when you have to call something for contact during a dead ball, but it's not flagrant.

You're right, the penalties are the same. Look under foul definitions, I believe, and you'll find the reference.

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). In NCAA it is an important distinction, where "intentional" signifies not only the nature of the foul, but also how you administer...in Fed all I have ever heard or used is Administrative, Player, etc...

[zm1283]

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). In NCAA it is an important distinction, where "intentional" signifies not only the nature of the foul, but also how you administer...in Fed all I have ever heard or used is Administrative, Player, etc...

What are you asking? This paragraph is a bit jumbled.

[Adam]

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). In NCAA it is an important distinction, where "intentional" signifies not only the nature of the foul, but also how you administer...in Fed all I have ever heard or used is Administrative, Player, etc...

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.

Intentionals can be personal or technical. 4-19 could really be a good friend

[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.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If A12 "meant" to run into B1, then I agree with the IT foul; if B1 was "just in the way", then it was probably nothing.

Give the T signal only.

His justification was "he was in my way". If I had not already signaled an intentional, he would have just bumped himself up to flagrant for his disregard but I based my call off the original assessment the contact. He was the causing a lot of the extra curricular activity after the whistle (prior to this incident) so he was already being watched closely to keep him in line and the contact was clearing intentional.

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?

4-19

ART. 3 . . . An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball or a player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based solely on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jdmara

His justification was "he was in my way". If I had not already signaled an intentional, he would have just bumped himself up to flagrant but I based my call off the original assessment the contact.

Still not too late.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Still not too late.

You are absolutely right! Honestly, I was too busy directing traffic (keeping everyone calm), explaining to my partner what the situation was and how we were going to administer everything (he's a rookie), and then using my game management skills with the coaches. Needless to say, I was a little rattled (which typically takes a small nuclear disaster) and didn't think everything through as much as I should have before reporting.

In hindsight, I should have just gotten rid of the instigator (A12) since it was obviously his demeanor and intent with that foul.

Appreciate the other views!

-Josh

[jdmara]

You all are right, technical fouls are all put into play at the division line. That is my fault.

-Josh