Intentional Technical Foul

[jdmara]

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

[deecee]

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[agr8zebra]

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.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by agr8zebra

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.

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...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

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.