It is possible to commit both a personal foul AND a technical foul.

So count the basket or not?
 

On the floor, I would have counted the basket and called a technical foul. On my couch at home, I must admit I have always been confused about foul categories, even though the topic appears here frequently. I am not sure if there is such a thing as a "player control technical". If there is, we should take away the basket on this play.

The rules I looked at are below. I am still not sure of the answer.

4.1.1 An airborne shooter is a player who has released the ball on a try
for a goal or has tapped the ball and has not returned to the floor.

4.19.1
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.

4.19.2
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

4.19.5c
A technical foul is:
c. An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except a foul
by an airborne shooter.

4.19.6
A player-control foul is a common foul committed by a player while
he/she is in control of the ball or by an airborne shooter.

5.1.2
Whether the clock is running or stopped has no influence on the
counting of a goal. If a player-control foul occurs before or after a goal, the goal
is canceled.

If you decide to call a player control foul, then the basket wouldn't count. If you decide to call a technical foul, then the basket counts and you'll administer the technical foul. Also, there's no such thing as a "player control technical."

You're not sure!? You cited the rules.

A PC foul is a common foul (4-19-6). A common foul is a personal foul (4-19-2).

So, it can't be a technical foul.

OK, the list in 4.19.5 prevents a foul from being both personal and technical. I think I see this, but I wish it were explicitly stated.

If a foul cannot be both personal and technical, I think I finally get this (after four years of officiating).

If this is the case, we cannot a call a technical in the OP unless we assume he hung on the rim long enough that the ball was dead, even though he had not returned to the ground as per 4.1.1.

Sorry to turn an interesting video post into into a newbie question, but I never have really got this. Since he never returns to the ground, this got me thinking.

Unsportsmanlike conduct can be called whether the ball is live or dead. This falls a lot more along the lines of unsportsmanlike conduct than it does a "dead ball" contact foul.

Rsi,

I appreciate the trying to figure out what to do part of this, but the player Rondo landed on did not appear to be in LGP. If you called that, then you might have to explain to someone why that was your decision. At least with a technical foul you have basis for such a rule as the play by rule is dead and any contact would be a T. But this would IMO not be just about the contact, it is about the act that Rondo purposely tried to taunt or embarrass his opponent. Stick with the obvious and call a T here. Calling a PC foul would not only be questionable, but not "technically" correct with how other factors are not present at that moment to make this a simply PC foul. Do not go troubling trouble.

Peace

+1

and I think I finally have my rule straight as well. You will now be returned to your regular boring May programming on the board ...

Riddle Me This ...
 

If March winds bring April showers. And if April showers bring May flowers. Then what do May flowers bring?

You could call an intentional personal foul on the shooter. A lack of LGP does not mean an offensive player can seek out a defender and purposefully create contact. That said, I'm giving him the T for hanging on the rim and leaving it at that.

Sort of like when multiple defenders foul a shooter, you could call them all, but it's overkill. Like you said, on this, call the obvious.

And Rondo is lucky he didn't get dumped on his head.

I agree with that, but it would be a stretch to call a PC foul just because the player was an airborne shooter. But if you call an intentional foul, it does not fit the definition of a PC foul and you cannot cancel the basket for that kind of foul either. Bottom line is you have made a simply situation into a complicated one. Do not get cute trying to over penalize the player, just call what they did and everyone can live with. Then again, it appears that no one called anything on this play. But the video was not definitive about that fact.

Peace

Whack.

This is so poor that I must question whether you know the rule any better than rsl.
1. LGP has nothing to do with the play. Why do you even mention it? A player with the ball or an airborne shooter can certainly commit a player control foul against an opponent who does not have LGP. There is a nice depiction in the Simplified & Illustrated book of a player charging into a defender who is facing the away from him. Take a look at it.
2. Yes, the ball is dead as it has passed through the basket, but writing "any contact would be a T" is wrong as this contact was created by an airborne shooter and rule 4-19-1 specifically tells us that such contact is a personal foul. Furthermore, any contact which is not intentional or flagrant or involving an airborne shooter during a dead ball is to be ignored as stated in the note to that same rule. Did you totally forget about this?
3. Lastly, you advise to "Stick with the obvious and call a T here." Too bad, as such poor advice is not supported by the NFHS rules. You are clearly not saying to charge a T for grasping the ring as you note "Rondo purposely tried to taunt or embarrass his opponent," so you are attempting to penalize his behavior. However, what was that behavior? Did he taunting him with words or by pointing at him? Nope, it was the act of landing himself on top of his opponent. That is a contact action. So BY RULE you cannot charge him with a T for unsporting behavior as that is defined as a NONcontact foul in 4-19-14.
4. Therefore, the proper ruling cannot be a technical foul for the behavior of the player in this particular case, but one could be charged for grasping the ring. Nor in my opinion should a player control foul be called, but that is at least a judgment call about the contact and not simply wrong by rule. What I see in this video is an airborne shooter deliberately creating unacceptable contact with an opponent during a dead ball. According to the NFHS rules that needs to be penalized with an intentional personal foul. The goal with count as the foul is not a common foul and thus cannot qualify as a player control foul. The offended player will attempt two FTs at the other end and then his team will have a designated-spot throw-in on the end line nearest to where the foul occurred.

This was an unusual play involving an airborne shooter misbehaving by creating contact. I commend rsl for inquiring about the proper ruling. You shouldn't have dismissed his querry so easily with your "keep it simple" advice, which in this case amounts to "don't really think about it and just get it wrong, very few people will actually know." That's a sad way to officiate. :(

I'm calling a 'T' for unnecessarily hanging and swinging on the rim.

Would Rondo have still been considered an Airborne Shooter had the opponents immediately grab the ball after basket and had the ball at their disposal before Rondo placed himself upon the defender's shoulders?

By rule, yes.