What do You Have Here?
 

Posted on another forum as well, but different folks here so want to get addtional opinions.

Situation 1:
Player A1 breaks away with a steal and is going for a layup. Before he leaves the floor and becomes an airborne shooter B1 commits hard foul by wrapping both arms around A1 to prevent him from leaving the floor and making a try.

Situation 2:
Same as Sit 1 except A1 has left the floor as an airborne shooter.

Based on:
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. 5 . . . A technical foul is:
a. A foul by a nonplayer.
b. A noncontact foul by a player.
c. An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except a foul
by an airborne shooter.

I know there could be a lot of "you have to see it" interpretations here, if you make a call here, would you call:
A] intentional; B] technical; or C] flagrant option of either intentional or technical.

Sit 1: Intentional foul. You did not say if A1 has begun his habitual shooting motion. Because of the nature of case book play writings, I would assume that they had. In other words, "before leaving the floor..." is not a complete picture about the player's action that allow for a correct ruling, including if a flagrant foul should be issued.

Sit 2: Intentional foul.

In both cases, the foul was designed to stop the clock. Wrapping arms around a player needn't be done in a "hard" way, so it wouldn't be an INT for excessive contact. It is however, clearly not playing the ball, and obviously intentionally fouling.

I think that you're confusing the categories of fouls. It is not possible to either of these fouls to be technical, posting Article 5 is extraneous information. As is option 2 in your multiple choice question.

Easy-Peasy-Lemon-Squeezy ...
 

Both personal intentional fouls.

Same answer here....

By your own cite above, what you can never have by rule is a technical foul any kind because the contact described in both situations came during a live ball. The only way you could possibly have an intentional or flagrant technical foul would be if the contact came after a shot was made and the ball was dead.

Your choices in both situations above are:
1) personal foul
2) intentional personal foul
3) flagrant personal foul

From your description above, the appropriate call imo would be an intentional personal foul.

Just to pile on, there's no such animal as "flagrant intentional"

Both "flagrant" and "intentional" are adjectives that can modify the two basic types of fouls "personal" and "technical." (Just like you can't have both P and T, you can't have both F and I)

Dyslexically correct: they are both intentional personal fouls. ;)

You thank.

One Way? Or the Other?
 

An apt description of BillyMac, who likely spends nights lying awake contemplating the existence of dog. :D

Thou Shalt Have No Other Dogs Before Me ...