Technical or Intentional
 

I am a new member, and I have enjoyed reading your posts, and I am excited to add to them, so please be gentle. I am still struggling when to come up with a technical or intentional.

Can we ever call a live ball contact foul a technical? Last night for example...two girls go to the ground with the ball..whistle had not blown yet, and one girl gave an aggressive shove to her opponent while trying to get the ball. Play had not been rough, and the game was under control. I wanted to call more than a common foul, but did not feel it warranted an ejection (maybe that choice wasn't mine to make?)

With the ball still live, is that an intentional (with the girl who was shoved taking the free throws)? If the whistle had blown, and it happened, is it now a technical?

Live ball excessive contact= intentional personal foul.

If the contact is of a violent or savage nature- flagrant personal.

If this intentional or flagrant contact happens during a dead ball -technical foul.

Welcome to the forum!No, by definition of a technical foul, but you could have a flagrant personal foul (which is an automatic disqualification) for something like fighting.Absolutely could be. And yes, the player who was fouled would shoot the FT's, unless unable to due to injury.If it's anything, then it it has to be a dead ball contact technical foul, yes.

Seems like you have it correct. With the part in "bold", are you saying that calling a "T" on a player results in ejection? A "T" does not cause a player to be ejected (unless it is a league or local policy). A player is disqualified to their bench after a second "T" or any flagrant foul.

The best source of this information would be rule 4 & rule 10 in your rulebooks. It describes what constitutes the fouls you reference. While there are some very knowledgeable folks in this forum, you should understand the verbiage of the rules books as it is the bible for officiating and the language officials speak.

Additionally, when the whistle sounds is NOT the determining factor for live/dead ball in most cases. The ball becomes dead at the time that any violation, foul, held ball, etc. occurs. This action frequently precedes the sounding of the whistle by a second or two. Therefore, if the play described in the OP had been adjudged to be either a held ball or a traveling violation prior to the shove, then the shove would properly be treated as dead ball contact.

Hey dork...;)

Great question and great answers.

...but, you know what? In my area we don't get hung up on if you give signal #36 or signal #38 as in your OP.

Just get the kid for this, IMO, "unsporting act". Your OP had the player agressively shoving another player...I'd whack him/her and not think another thing of it.

If you think to much...you may miss these type of plays. WE NEED TO GET THESE! GET UM AND DON'T WORRY if the ball will be taken out at opposite table or at the spot of the foul.

BTW...I have had several of these live ball T's in my career and never a word from anyone that matters.

In fact, there once was a great dinosaur of a man that lurked about on this site...that told me he had no problem with me T'ing a kid in a live ball situation, that I had indeed described here. He said it was better to get the kid than miss the call because you are worrying about what signal to put up.;)

While I agree about the signal, and agree it's better to get the foul than not, I strongly disagree about not needing to get it correct as a personal foul.

whatever you do, dont listen to rookie dude. absolutely no way you can justify calling a technical foul for contact during a live ball. doesnt matter that he hasnt been called on it yet. it isnt supported by the rules and if he ever does that in a game with a coach that knows the rules he will find himself in hot water when said coach lets his assignment person know rookie knowing set aside a rule because his assignment person will not be able to defend his actions on any level.