Dead ball technical

[Boone12]

MS game playing by NFHS rules...

A1 shoots and is fouled by B1, ball does not go through hoop, ends up in the hands of A1. While I am reporting A1 bats the ball into the back of B1's head. I call a technical on A1. This is very similar to the case book p84, 10.3.7.

We clear the lane, A1 shoots two FT's, then team B player shoots two and gets the ball at the division line. Team A coach puts a sub in for A1. We play ball.

I think I got a couple things wrong:

1. Ball should have been put in play at the spot nearest the foul (false double-foul). I thought I saw this in the book earlier, now I can't find it.

2. Another official told me that a dead-ball technical foul is automatically a flagrant foul. I can't find this in the book. I do see that 4.19.5c says that a technical foul can be intentional or flagrant while the ball is dead. This tells me that based on what I enforced I called an intentional technical foul.

Thoughts on ball placement, flagrant vs intentional, other?

Thanks,

[eyezen]

Well actually by NFHS rules you got everything right. And I would stop listening to that official.

[jalons]

Originally Posted by Boone12

MS game playing by NFHS rules...

A1 shoots and is fouled by B1, ball does not go through hoop, ends up in the hands of A1. While I am reporting A1 bats the ball into the back of B1's head. I call a technical on A1. This is very similar to the case book p84, 10.3.7.

We clear the lane, A1 shoots two FT's, then team B player shoots two and gets the ball at the division line. Team A coach puts a sub in for A1. We play ball.

I think I got a couple things wrong:

1. Ball should have been put in play at the spot nearest the foul (false double-foul). I thought I saw this in the book earlier, now I can't find it.

2. Another official told me that a dead-ball technical foul is automatically a flagrant foul. I can't find this in the book. I do see that 4.19.5c says that a technical foul can be intentional or flagrant while the ball is dead. This tells me that based on what I enforced I called an intentional technical foul.

Thoughts on ball placement, flagrant vs intentional, other?

Thanks,

1. Administer the fouls in the order they occur. A1 shoots 2 shots for the shooting foul. Then any eligible member of Team B shoots 2 free throws for the technical. Play is resumed with a throw-in by Team B at half-court.

2. Another official is wrong. This foul could be a player technical or a flagrant player technical. This situation is a HTBT. That is why you make the big bucks.

[APG]

1. You administered the play correctly. You penalize fouls in the order they occur. Since the technical was last, and after all technical fouls the ball goes to midcourt, you inbound it there.

2. Dead ball technical fouls do not have to be flagrant. Dead ball contact will be called a technical foul only if the contact was intentional or flagrant. In your case, you had an unsportsmanlike technical foul rather than dead ball contact. A case could be made that you could of called a flagrant technical foul, but it sounds like a HTBT moment.

[Mark Padgett]

On point number two, the other official was flagrantly wrong.

[Boone12]

HTBT? I'm lost on that one.

Thanks for the quick replies.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by Boone12

HTBT? I'm lost on that one.

Thanks for the quick replies.

Had To Be There

[Robert E. Harrison]

Had To Be There
UR welcome

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

1. You administered the play correctly. You penalize fouls in the order they occur. Since the technical was last, and after all technical fouls the ball goes to midcourt, you inbound it there.

2. Dead ball technical fouls do not have to be flagrant. Dead ball contact will be called a technical foul only if the contact was intentional or flagrant. In your case, you had an unsportsmanlike technical foul rather than dead ball contact. A case could be made that you could of called a flagrant technical foul, but it sounds like a HTBT moment.

I agree with this post 100%. Unsporting technical fouls are for non-contact situations. I have always understood the NFHS definition of contact to be person to person, not object to person. Others have expressed a different view and consider the definition to include any contact caused. Either way, it doesn't really matter as long as you correctly decide whether the action warranted a plain ole run of the mill player technical foul or if the action was so egregious that it demands a flagrant and DQ'ing the player. This is completely up to your judgment. There is NO rule stating that such action at any time during the game must be flagrant.