So are you saying that had the ball been dead, you would have an intentional foul under NFHS rules?

My initial opinion of the OP, was that the contact was at the level of a common foul for illegal contact while attempting to box out. Hypothetically speaking, had the ball just gone through the basked and become dead, then that contact would be ignored. To your question, one reason why there would be such contact is that it sometimes takes a second for players to react to the fact that the play is over.

The ball was in the air, on a bonus free throw, when the contact occured. It was not a dead ball. That's the main reason for the outrage over the call. The crew made up their own interpretation.

I know all that. Did you read what I was responding to? :confused:

Dead ball contact shall be ignored unless it is intentional or flagrant. That contact was not UNINTENTIONAL. So if a player did that after the ball is dead, I have no problem T'ing them up.

Ah..mea culpa.

If the ball had been in flight at the time of this contact would you call an intentional personal foul?

I'm curious what makes you have the opinion that this contact is "intentional" in the basketball definition sense, not the Webster's English dictionary definition sense.

All this provokes the question whether the contact landing in a sensitive area can change the call. Had the contact in the video occurred a few inches to one side or the other the effects would have barely been noticed if at all.

Because Webster's definition applies for me in this case.

I'm surprised to hear that response from you.

So are you calling an intentional personal foul if this action takes place during a live ball?

B1 is whistled for a handcheck. A1 takes 2 more dribbles after the whistle and turns to pass the ball to the official. B1 knows the play is dead but attempts to knock the pass down and instead whacks A1 across the wrists.

Is that a tech?

Not for dead ball contact. I see this action as constituting a normal foul if the ball had been live, and thus it is ignored BY RULE when it occurs during a dead ball.

Now will you please answer the question that I've asked you twice?

No I'm not.

And in the play I submitted to you, I'm calling a T.

And I have no problem explaining it to a coach or supervisor. I had this debate with Jurassic when I first joined the board.

I err on the side of vigorously discouraging any unnecessary crap between players.

Third one of the season yesterday. GV. Defensive player in upper block enters lane, proceeds backwards to displace FT shooter.
Shooter, "holding her pose" as the FT was in flight, buckled over from the "butt to the gut" illegal contact (actually lower than the shooter's gut, but then it wouldn't rhyme). Spurious charge of, "But she was boxing her out!" by defensive coach was laughable. Didn't need to check the monitor for this one. Wasn't a dead-ball technical.

So you are issuing technical fouls because you don't like someone's actions. You are on dangerous ground. I may not care for what a player or coach does, but my duty is to enforce the rules as written, and not impose my personal interpretation of justice. Unfortunately, that means that I have to let a few things go for which I might wish to issue a technical foul, but can't justify under dead-ball contact or unsporting behavior (non-contact).
The rules tell us that not all contact during a dead ball should be penalized with a technical foul. Quite clearly officials are to only penalize contact that is deemed intentional or flagrant, so I'm going to stick with that.
Sadly, you are having trouble answering the question I posed because you are reluctant to reconsider your long-held belief and come to terms with the fact that you've been acting incorrectly.

Uh isn't that what we are supposed to do, use our judgement?