Applying 4-19-1 NOTE . . .

[Freddy]

This relates to a situation I had yesterday, about which some have offered clarification in a previous thread. Thinking it through more thoroughly, there remains one point yet unclear to me. Hoping you can resolve my mental dilemma.

I understand the 4-19-1 NOTE: "Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter."

Therefore, when there is contact by shooter on a defender after he lands and his driving layup was good, my choices are:
A. Ignore it
B. Rule it intentional
C. Rule it flagrant

QUESTION: If the situation warrants it and I rule the contact intentional, would that be:
1) an intentional personal foul, or
2) an intentional technical foul?

4-19-3 gives me these two choices, and the difference would be where the ball would be put in play next--at POI, or at the division line.

I'm coming down on the side of intentional technical foul, since 4-19-5c defines a technical foul as "An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead...".

What say you?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Freddy

This relates to a situation I had yesterday, about which some have offered clarification in a previous thread. Thinking it through more thoroughly, there remains one point yet unclear to me. Hoping you can resolve my mental dilemma.

I understand the 4-19-1 NOTE: "Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne shooter."

Therefore, when there is contact by shooter on a defender after he lands and his driving layup was good, my choices are:
A. Ignore it
B. Rule it intentional
C. Rule it flagrant

QUESTION: If the situation warrants it and I rule the contact intentional, would that be:
1) an intentional personal foul, or
2) an intentional technical foul?

4-19-3 gives me these two choices, and the difference would be where the ball would be put in play next--at POI, or at the division line.

I'm coming down on the side of intentional technical foul, since 4-19-5c defines a technical foul as "An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead...".

What say you?

Yep, you've got it. An intentional or flagrant foul committed while the ball is dead is a technical foul, unless it is by or on an airborne shooter.

Not only does the distinction as technical alter from where play will be resumed, but also allows any eligible team member to attempt the FTs rather than only the player who was fouled.

So in such a situation you need to approach it this way:
1. Understand that the ball is dead.
2. Know when the player ceases to be an airborne shooter.
3. Observe the contact.
4. Decide if the contact rises to the level of intentional or flagrant.
5. If so, penalize it with a technical foul. If not, ignore it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Yep, you've got it. An intentional or flagrant foul committed while the ball is dead is a technical foul, unless it is by or on an airborne shooter.

Not only does the distinction as technical alter from where play will be resumed, but also allows any eligible team member to attempt the FTs rather than only the player who was fouled.

So in such a situation you need to approach it this way:
1. Understand that the ball is dead.
2. Know when the player ceases to be an airborne shooter.
3. Observe the contact.
4. Decide if the contact rises to the level of intentional or flagrant.
5. If so, penalize it with a technical foul. If not, ignore it.

And when in doubt, lean toward the latter.