Intentional Technical Foul

[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.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by zm1283

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

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?

Originally Posted by slow whistle

anybody ever signaled a "block" at the table when what really happened was a "push"? Did it make a bit of difference?

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

[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?

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.

[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 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..

[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.

[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.....

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.

[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?

[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.