What Do You Have Here??
 

Ponder this situation and post what you think the appropriate call would be:

A1 and B5 are going for a rebound under the basket. The ball is not secured and bounces to the corner of the court where both players continue to go after it. The ball is eventually picked up by another Team A player and is moved up the court to their frontcourt. Meanwhile during the struggle for the loose ball both A1 and B5 go down. The official stays with both players and sees B5 extend his leg toward A1 as both are on the ground. It was not a full kick, but was an obvious extension and B5 was looking right at A1 when it happened. Contact was made on the torso/lower side of A1. The official whistles an Intentional Foul on B5. His ruling was that he knew he missed something that happened on the rebounding action against B5 and felt an Intentional was the right call. It didn't toss B5, but sent a message that this kind of play would not be tolerated. An observer however stated that an unsporting Technical or Flagrant Personal should have been called and that he indeed missed an elbow in the back by A1 toward B5 during rebounding action.

What do you guys think here with this description?

Sounds like a pretty good call. HTBT to determine if it was just intentional or if it was at the level of flagrant. Someone should tell the "observer" you cannot have a technical for player-to-player contact during a live ball. As to possibly missing a previous foul - he just missed it, that's all. Nothing he can do about it now. Certainly, he shouldn't "adjust" the severity of the foul he saw based on what the reason for it might have been on something he missed.

Does anyone know if you could have this in NCAA Men's? The observer is a college official

From the description, the official got the call right.

These two cannot both even be options for the same action. Any action that qualifies for one isn't eligible for the other.

Same principle. You cannot have a technical foul for live ball contact.

But you can have a T for unsporting conduct if there were other actions other than the contact itself that occurred....taunting/words/etc., even if there was also contact.

Swing and missing with an attempted punch and swing and missing with a leg are Flagrant Personal fouls. Thus the kick with contact could have been a Flagrant Personal. HTHBT

How do you have a personal foul without contact? :confused: Unless this is a difference between NF and NCAA. Wouldn't the appropriate call be a flagrant technical for the swing and miss?

Yes you can go with a Flagrant Technical for noncontact that displays unacceptable conduct.

Under NFHS rules, the original play should have been a flagrant personal foul, not an intentional personal foul.

Wow. Uhm, no.

The play as described in the OP is either an intentional personal or a flagrant personal. A technical just isn't an option for a live ball contact foul. Without having seen it, I'd say IP is the better option.

It sends a sufficient message, which is simply a bonus on top of being a correct ruling.

The "miss" means it's a non-contact foul, which means it can't be personal.
I'm not sure if you're talking about the description in the original post or the description that you quoted from Zoochy. But since you responded directly to that comment, I'll just reiterate that the way Zoochy described it, as I mentioned above, it can't be a personal foul.

Sorry, I wasn't clear (now corrected). I was referring to the OP.

I don't see your point other than stating the obvious. His question concerned a player extending his leg (kicking) and making contact to an opponent.

From the OP:

"The official stays with both players and sees B5 extend his leg toward A1 as both are on the ground. It was not a full kick, but was an obvious extension and B5 was looking right at A1 when it happened. Contact was made on the torso/lower side of A1"

Since when is kicking an opponent an intentional foul? If he extends his leg, he makes contact, and the official calls a foul, it's got to be a kick, which is flagrant.