Shot goes in, then push foul. How often?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's not a matter of being generous. It's a matter of pointing out a very obvious rules mistake by Randy . It can't be a freaking "run-of-the-mill technical foul" by rule. Rule 4-19-1NOTE to be exact. As per that rule, all dead-ball contact-fouls have to be intentional or flagrant in nature, NOT a "run-of-the mill technical foul".

Perhaps what they were both trying to say was that contact during a dead ball which is deemed intentional results in a "run of the mill" technical, as opposed to a flagrant technical.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Perhaps what they were both trying to say was that contact during a dead ball which is deemed intentional results in a "run of the mill" technical, as opposed to a flagrant technical.

And that's still misleading. By rule, you can have either an intentional technical foul or a flagrant technical foul. When someone tells me a foul was a "common" technical foul or a "run-of-the-mill" technical foul. I naturally assume that the foul isn't intentional or flagrant in nature. And according to a recent poll, 99.46% of all officials agreed with that assumption.

If you just stick to the normal rules language, you don't run into confusion like this.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And according to a recent poll, 99.46% of all officials agreed with that assumption.

Wow. A higher percentage than Ivory Soap. I didn't think that was mathematically possible.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Perhaps what they were both trying to say was that contact during a dead ball which is deemed intentional results in a "run of the mill" technical, as opposed to a flagrant technical.

This is, of course, exactly what I thought Randy was saying. It's an intentional technical foul, which in this situation, is "run-of-the-mill" -- rather than flagrant.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This is, of course, exactly what I thought Randy was saying. It's an intentional technical foul, which in this situation, is "run-of-the-mill" -- rather than flagrant.

Got it. A "common player technical foul" is an intentional technical foul.

Is a common player personal foul always an intentional personal foul too, according to the same logic?