Intentional Technical Foul
 

Silly situation happened last night. I know that I made the right call but I'm not sure if I signaled it correctly.

The game was getting a little chippy and after whistles the players were continuing just a little longer than they should have (but nothing too extreme). We tried to address it by talking with the players during dead balls and continuing to call the rough play. A12 seemed to be the stem of all the problems though. 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. I didn't think it warranted a flagrant foul.

I'm unsure if I signaled it correctly though. Since the foul occurred during a dead ball, it has to be a technical. So should I first signal a technical and then follow it with the intentional foul signal? I didn't and I think that was incorrect since the bench wouldn't know that the player is disqualified if he received another technical. Thanks

-Josh

from what you described it sounds like a no call -- if the ball was not at the disposal then its a T.

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.

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?

I think we would need to know more the situation, But if you thought it should be assessed as a IntFoul, I would come up with the T 1st, not sure I would ever even give the INTFOUL signal, but that is just me. The important thing is to communicate it is a T, and such activity need not need to occur.

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

It is one or the other, but not both...sounds like it was dead ball so it is a tech, if the ball is at the disposal of the thrower when it happens and you judge it to be intentional contact then it is an intentional foul, but you shouldn't signal both...

It is both if the ball is dead. You're right that you don't signal both; signal the tech since that's the most important part of the definition.

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)?

It is both, but you only signal the T. In HS and NCAA-M, this is an intentional technical foul.

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.

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.

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

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.

Help me out here, looking at page 71 of current fed rule book, the technical foul summary - where do we see "intentional technical"?

Still not too late. :)

So signal T at the spot...come to the table, Color, number, signal "T", Intentional?, Push, (put my left foot in, left foot out, left foot in, and shake it all about), administer free throws, put ball back in play at the spot of the foul (in this instance backcourt endline since the foul happened in the backcourt lane). Thanks all

-Josh

I wouldn't even use the word "intentional." It's only likely to confuse the scorers, coaches, players, and fans (and maybe even the officials).

Ball goes into play at the division line, though, since it's a technical foul.

It's not there because the penalties don't differ. The reference is already posted for you above, in rule 4-19.

Try the Rule 4-19

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.

Actually, I'm not positive, but I believe Intentional Technicals in NCAA are two shots and the ball at the division line; not POI.

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

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

-Josh

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...

Wow - You are correct for men. I assumed it was the same, but just did some digging, and found that the resumption of play is different for the two sides. POI for NCAA-W, division line for NCAA-M. Nice catch. My mistake.

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

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 ;)

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?

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

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

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.

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?

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..

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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