You are correct that fouls against a player in the act of shooting don't have a modifier. They are just personal fouls.

The others have modifiers--double, false double, etc.

I advocate sticking to the terms in the book and teaching it that way.

As a general rule, I do as well. But the rule book shows signs of having been rewritten dozens of times, to the point where the types of fouls have become more confusing than they need to be.

When I started doing basketball I sat down to work out a breakdown of the types of fouls, and I was frustrated that I couldn't figure it out. Part of the problem, it seems to me, is that "shooting foul" is not explicitly defined in the rules. I don't think we do a service to newer officials by slavishly following rulebook usage in absolutely every case.

As you know, the rule book is not perfect. "Sticking to the terms in the book and teaching it that way" stifles improvement.

UNLV/Va Tech game today from tournament in Anaheim, CA.

Va Tech has the ball in their frontcourt. On the wing away from the ball a UNLV player raises his arms and catches the opponent in the face with an elbow. There is no whistle on the play. The Va Tech player goes down and remains down.

Va Tech proceeds to attack the goal from the opposite side and scores. The game is stopped, the Va Tech is attended to, and the officials go to the monitor.

They decide that the UNLV player was guilty of an intentional personal foul. 2FTs were awarded to the fouled Va Tech player who was allowed to remain in the game due to the decision to charge an intentional foul, and the game was resumed at the POI, which was the UNLV endline throw-in following the made goal by Va Tech.

So we now have two examples of crews going to the monitor for an intentional personal foul for an elbow above the shoulders which wasn't whistled during live action and resuming at the POI.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you won't see me teaching shooting fouls, combo fouls, or reaching fouls to those officials I instruct. ;)

Which is the proper procedure:

I am still looking for the section where in a situation like this (Intentional Foul) that the play is resumed at the POI.

NCAA Rulebook (Pg 125) Rule 10 Penalty e.2. Two free throws for: An intentional or flagrant personal foul and the ball awarded to a designated spot nearest to where the foul occurred.

NCAA Rulebook (Pg 152) Foul Name: Intentional Foul. Resumption of Play: Throw-in to the offended team at the designated spot.

Is there a casebook play or someplace in the rulebook that says that the stated play is a POI? Thanks.

I don't have my books in front of me, but I believe it has to be a POI because they went to the monitor and went back and "fixed" the Int. foul. Since there had been game action since the Int. Foul actually took place, they have to go POI.

Check your rulebook and AR's under the Use of Monitor sections...

If it were deemed a flagrant personal foul then you would give the ball back to the offended team without regard to the POI. For an intentional foul I need to look that up.

This is NOT a POI issue. It is an issue of penalizing infractions in the order of occurance. The possession part of a foul is null and void if there is a subsequent foul committed before that possession is granted.

Consider the case of one technical foul on team A followed by the another technical foul on team B. Does B ever get possession for team A's T? No. You shoot one T. Then the other T. Then A get's possession as part of the final foul in the sequence.

Sorry, Camron, but my example does NOT contain a 2nd foul. There was no foul whistled on the play at all. Action was stopped after a made goal to get attention for an injured player. So your explanation cannot apply.
It has to be either POI or enforce the possession part of the intentional personal foul.

My point was that while we haven't seen a clear approved ruling stating to resume at the POI, we now have two D1 crews going to the POI. I have faith that they have specific instruction on this which we aren't privy to and are getting it right.

I'd be curious to see the ruling on this...

A1 with the ball elbows B1 in the face but nothing is called. A1 looses the ball as a result and it deflects off of B1 before going OOB. The covering official indicates that it is A's ball. The officials go to the monitor to review the play and tag A1 with an intentional foul. Will it go to the POI on this one?