Contact doesn't have to be "intentional" to be an intentional foul. IMO, this "unless" provision should also include excessive contact. Not saying you situation would have qualified, but it could have.

The definition of intentional foul covers the excessive part.

Yep. Guess I could have been more clear.

I would say my feelings did matter. Based on my limited play calling intuition I felt that something big had happened, and I felt that something should have been called, despite my limited view of what happened. My gut said call something, my mind said don't guess. How would you have chosen?

If I didn't see it clearly, I wouldn't have made the call. Make a note to be more aware of that sort of action in the future and learn from the situation. That gut instinct is probably right, but maybe B1 was just protecting himself from a pending collision with A1.

If coach asks, tell him you were focused on the foul you called and didn't get a clear look at the ancillary action.

I don't think you understood the point I was trying to make. The call you make will be intentional or technical however the actual severity of contact may not hit the threshold of what may be an intentional or technical.

I'm not sure I understand either. :confused:

The call you make will be either intentional or flagrant. It'll just be a technical foul rather than a personal foul.

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. If you didn't see what happened, which you said several times you didn't, you can't just call something because you think something happened. If you don't see it, leave it alone. That's what you have partners for.

Right but the actual act that you penalize could be a common foul if the ball was live. Some officials could interpret this that ONLY intentionals or technicals should be called. When the fact could be that the foul that is penalized may not be level of severity. But the penalty assessed CAN only be intentional or technical and NOT common.

I think it would have to be more than a common foul. A lot of contact is a result of other contact that was already called. Someone just falling down into someone is not going to result in a foul that I would call Intentional or a Technical in a dead ball situation. I think the point of the language is to highlight that it has to be relatively serious to call a foul in that situation.

Peace

If it would have been a common fouls had the ball been live, then it will be ignored (that is, it will not be penalized -- you might address it from a game management perspective) if the ball is dead.

Again, those are not opposites / exclusive terms. The foul called in this play will either be an intentional technical foul or a flagrant technical foul. It will not be an intentional personal foul or a flagrant personal foul or a common foul.

Please stop saying "it will be intentional OR technical" -- it will likely be both (if called) in this play. (Not directed at you alone)

No idea what happened or no idea what to do?

There's a big difference and you haven't given solid statement as to what your partners said about the situation.

If somebody already said this, forgive me. He mentions in the OP that A1 hits the floor. I hope not too much was made of this. Even if you did see the whole thing a player could have hit the floor, hard even, and it could be the result of incidental contact.

Never call what you think or feel. Call what you know. Usually that means taking emotion out of the equation.

I would normally agree. If I made a call there it would have been a guess, although an educated guess based on what I did know.

I did give a solid statement, I wrote this in my OP:

I say they didn't know what to do because they didn't see the play either.