Foul In the Post: One Continuous Action or Technical Foul?

APG

Do you have this as a foul in the post and consider it all one continuous action or would you have an intentional (or maybe flagrant) technical foul (or whatever terminology is appropriate for the level you work).

FYI, in the game above, the officials initially ruled a flagrant foul penalty one which triggered a review...they downgraded it to a technical foul upon review.

BktBallRef

Looks like a plain ol' foul to me. Had the L had a quicker whistle, he could have cleaned it up a little earlier.

JRutledge

It is all apart of the same action. It would just be a foul based on the ball being live. I would not even think to make this anything other than a foul. I doubt it would be a FF1 or intentional at the levels I work.

Peace

Jay R

APG wrote
FYI, in the game above, the officials initially ruled a flagrant foul penalty one which triggered a review...they downgraded it to a technical foul upon review.

APG,

How could this be a technical foul? The ball is live. Should it not be either a regular foul or a flagrant?

JugglingReferee

Just a foul. I like BBR's notion that a quicker whistle is beneficial to the game.

Camron Rust

One foul.

HawkeyeCubP

Jay R wrote
APG,

How could this be a technical foul? The ball is live. Should it not be either a regular foul or a flagrant?

I think one could suggest that it is a live ball foul (common) followed by a dead ball contact technical foul.

For me, it's all one. If the whistle had been a lot sooner, I think one could make an argument for a DBCTF after the common foul call at some levels.

deecee

This is either a common or intentional foul. I think a flagrant or even technical (dead ball contact) is a stretch. I would go intentional as this was not exactly a basketball movement and its no different than a ball handler getting pushed in the back or pulling a jersey. The defender just grabbed the offensive player from the front (even though he was behind) and throws him to the floor.

No way is this common in my opinion.

Rich

BktBallRef wrote
Looks like a plain ol' foul to me. Had the L had a quicker whistle, he could have cleaned it up a little earlier.

Really? I watched it 3 times and the whistle seems to come (IMO) about exactly when I thought there was a foul to call.

APG

Jay R wrote
APG,

How could this be a technical foul? The ball is live. Should it not be either a regular foul or a flagrant?

Perhaps I worded it poorly...they had a personal foul...followed by a call for a flagrant foul penalty one for the dead ball contact. Upon review, they downgraded that to a technical foul.

And you're generally right that one can not call a technical foul for live ball contact in the NBA except for fighting fouls and/or taunts with physical contact.

Not sure what others are saying when they say the lead could have called it earlier... it appears to me that the lead called the foul pretty much when it occurred.

BktBallRef

BktBallRef wrote
Looks like a plain ol' foul to me. Had the L had a quicker whistle, he could have cleaned it up a little earlier.

Rich wrote
Really? I watched it 3 times and the whistle seems to come (IMO) about exactly when I thought there was a foul to call.

Yes, really. I think the initial foul could have been called on the offensive player, who had his left arm extended and hooked, trying to prevent the defender from fronting him.