Not a good example as that is dead ball contact which can be ignored by rule unless it is intentional or flagrant.

True. But that was my point (i'll admit not the best analogy). I would not be giving the technical because of contact with the shoelace (someone could touch someones shoelace in an attempt to let them know that it was untied). The technical in my opinion is the doing something to an opponent that is done in an unsporting manner.

So what kind of foul do you assess for a two-handed shove in the back during a breakaway layup? Do you think such an action is sporting?

How about if a player grabs an opponent by the hair during play, either to stop a try for goal or during rebounding action?

Intentional (or Flagrant if I thought it rose to that level) for both cases.

I don't see how that is anything close to untying someone's shoe away from the play.

How about this ...Player A loses a headband going up the court. Player B picks up the headband and 1) in a friendly manner, puts the headband back on the head of Player A or 2) Puts the headband on the head of player A over his/her eyes in an unsporting manner.

I have nothing in #1
I have an unsporting technical in #2. It's not the intentional contact that I am calling, it is the unsporting act. If someone wants to argue that it is a live ball so it has to be intentional, I can see that, but I just disagree in this case (and the case of the shoe untying). In my opinion unsporting act of untying an opponents shoe causes the ball to become dead (not the officials whistle), much like it would if a player curses on the court.

Intentional or flagrant WHAT? You leave out the important part!

How about a player deliberately tripping an opponent during a live ball with the only contact being shoe-to-shoe?

What exactly is the standard that you are using to make your decisions?

The distinction is whether it is the contact that makes it a foul or some other element. In the shoelace example, they could touch the shoelace all day and it wouldn't be a foul of any kind. It is the intent of trying to untie is that becomes unsportsmanlike. The amount of contact just doesn't rise to the level of a contact foul...but it is unsportsmanlike.

In the the two-hand shove in the back case, it is the magnitude and type of contact that makes is an intentional/flagrant personal foul....the same points of contact with only very slight pressure wouldn't even be a foul.

Intentional (or Flagrant) Personal foul ... sorry I thought that was obvious in the case of a shove to the back. Two shots and ball at spot nearest to foul.

Camron Rust just summarized (better than I could) what I was thinking. The standard I'm using is to determine what exactly needs to be penalized. In the case of a shove during a layup, I am penalizing the act of shoving (intentional/flagrant personal). In the case of a untying a shoe, I'd be penalizing the unsporting act, not the touching of the shoelace (technical).