Dead ball contact--NFHS
 

Had this come up at our local meeting. Team A has a sideline throw in. BEFORE the official hands the ball to thrower A1, B2 strikes A3 with an elbow in A3's chest. Nothing flagrant, but he meant to do it. The calling official called an intentional. After looking it up in the book, it says this would be penalized with an "intentional technical". My question is, since the rule contains "intentional" does the offended player have to shoot? Or can anyone shoot? The book seems sort of contradictory and doesn't provide the definition/penalty of an "intentional technical". THanks!

Technical = any legal substitute

Personal = player fouled unless injured or instructed to leave

What was the basis for not being Flagrant?? Just curious.

Since it is a technical foul any member of the opposing team may attempt the FTs.

The determination of the shooter comes from personal versus technical, not intentional or flagrant.

I wasn't there. We discussed the play tonight at a training session. The official who called it said it wasn't worth ejecting the player. I rationalized that intentional=live ball action and you can't have an intentional foul during a dead ball. I thought you could only have a T or flagrant T during a dead ball. Then we got on the topic of this intentional technical and no one seemed to have a definitive answer.

Wow, they let those guys work HS games! :eek:

Here's your mistake: intentional does NOT equal common

Read these definitions from 4-19.

A foul is an infraction of the rules which is charged and is penalized.
ART. 1 . . . A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with
an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from performing
normal defensive and offensive movements. A personal foul also includes contact
by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is dead.
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.
ART. 2 . . . A common foul is a personal foul which is neither flagrant nor
intentional nor committed against a player trying or tapping for a field goal nor a
part of a double, simultaneous or multiple foul.
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.
ART. 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. If personal, it involves, but is not
limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it
involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or
persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

Yes can be Intentional or Flagrant for contact

TECHNICAL FOUL
4.19.5 SITUATION: A1 is fouled by B1. A1 subsequently pushes B1. RULING: If
a foul is called on A1, it must be either an intentional or flagrant technical. If it is
ruled flagrant, A1 must be disqualified. If A1’s contact during a dead ball was neither
intentional nor flagrant, it should have been ignored. (4-19-1 Note; 10-3-8)

Now I am not second guessing the official for his decision to go with Intentional because he was ultimately there during action. But with the description of the play I find it hard not to go with Flagrant if the elbow was swung and contacted the other player in the chest. Just my opinion

So for the purposes of how it's penalized, a technical is a technical, regardless of whether or not it's an intentional technical. Two shots by any player of the offending team or a substitute and the ball at the division line. Correct?

Actually, at the NFHS level the offended team may have two different players attempt the FTs for any technical foul, but otherwise you are correct.

Your rationalization is wrong.

All fouls are either Personal (generally, live ball contact) or Technical (generally, dead-ball contact or non-contact).

The foul *might* have an adjective on the front -- common, Intentional , Flagrant, ...

Dead ball contact is ignored if it's not Intentional or Flagrant. So, there's no "common" Technical for contact.

Your play had dead ball contact that couldn't be ignored. So, it was a T. The calling official judged it to be non-flagrant. The only choice left is an Intentional Technical foul.

(and, in all of the above, I'm ignoring dead ball contact on or by an airborne shooter)

+1

Another way to think of it: we ignore dead ball contact unless intentional or flagrant. Excessive contact is one of two grounds for calling an intentional foul, which must be a T when the ball is dead (assuming no airborne shooter).

+1 Great Explanation Bob! :D