How many mistakes?
 

Had an interesting play last night. I called a held ball and within a second of this call one of the two (the player from team B) engaged in the held ball gives a two handed shove to the other player from team A. I immediately call an intentional which sees team A get two free throws and then taking the ball at point of interuption spot. The possession arrow is not changed (at my directive) after the inbounds following the two shots. Team A still has the arrow in their favor. This is correct, right?

Secondly, was I right to call an intentional or since play was dead should it have been a technical?

You got it.

Just another ref
 

Thanks. Why was the intentional versus technical the correct call?

The correct call would be an intentional technical foul for dead ball contact which you deemed intentional. Two shoots for the offended team and the ball out of bounds at the division line. Arrow will remain the same since the throw in is for the technical foul and not the held ball.

It wasn't. I meant that you got it when you asked the question in the last line of the OP.

What he meant is that the part he highlighted in red was the answer; since the play was dead, the correct call would be a technical foul. An intentional foul involves contact during a live ball.

As you know from your own comment, since there was a held ball, the ball is dead. When the ball is dead all contact except for intentional or flagrant is ignored and if there is a foul, it must be a technical foul (dead ball). If you deemed it a foul, the correct call is an intentional technical foul (dead ball intentional contact).

Mregor

Important thing I didn't see in the replies: you said you went to POI - that's incorrect. The intentional technical foul would provide the means for putting the ball back in play. The throw-in for the held ball never happened, so regardless of who the arrow pointed to it wouldn't be changed.

It's Two, Two, Two Fouls In One ..
 

Can't it be both, or am I screwing this up like I screwed up an intentional flagrant foul a few weeks ago on the NFHS forum? Boy, did I get schooled by Woody on that.

http://www.nfhs.org/cgi-bin/ultimate...;f=11;t=002210

4-19-3: An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul which neutralizes an opponent's obvious advantageous position.

4-19-5-c: A technical foul is: An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except a foul by an airborne shooter.

I would like to see these definitions changed. In my experience, when we say intentional we mean an intentional personal foul. This is obviously quite significant since the penalty for the foul changes dramatically. A technical foul is a technical foul, one example of which is intentional dead ball contact.

No Such Animal ...
 

While your at it, please change this definition also:

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional.

Yet, there is no such animal as an intentional flagrant foul. In this rule, the word intentional means the dictionary definition of intentional (having to do with intention or purpose, done purposely, intended), not the rulebook definition of intentional (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)

On the NFHS forum, when Woody talks, people listen. He kind of reminds me of JurassicReferee, who used to post on this Forum, may he rest in peace.