Sadly, I already answered your question at 9:51pm Eastern Time last night...trying more reading, and less posturing and lecturing. If you are going to command me to answer a question then take the time to read my answer which was right after your post from 9:29pm Eastern Time last night.

I'm fine with the ground I'm on. And yes, I call Techs on dead balls when players do something I deem detrimental to the good order and discipline of the game. You don't have to like it. Now, if you are ever my supervisor, I will adjust my thinking for those games which you assign me. Until then you'll just have to live with the travesty my way of thinking is rendering to the game. :rolleyes:

No, we're supposed to apply the rules. BNR is ignoring the rules book definition of "intentional" and instead using it's common definition in order to justify Ts that aren't justified under the rules.

You cannot give a T because you don't like someone or their actions. They must actually commit an act that is punishable, by rule, with a technical foul.

The rule for HS reads:

10-3 ART. 7
A player shall not:

Intentionally or flagrantly contacting an opponent when the ball is dead and such contact is not a personal foul.


Nowhere does that rule say that "Intentionally" is defined as the same contact that constitutes an Intentional foul.

But to play your "BNR is ignoring the rule" game, one definition of an Intentional foul is:

b. Contact away from the ball with an opponent who is clearly not involved with a play.

Once the ball is dead, the player contacted is obviously not involved in any play of any kind, so that contact can be deemed Intentional in my book.

Since there is no such thing as an Intentional Foul in NCAA basketball, I'm not concerned with whether or not an Intentional Foul would be called if the ball were live.

For NCAA-Men's, the rule reads:

10-3 Art. 1d.

Contacting an opponent, while the ball is dead, in an unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive manner.

Nowhere in that rule does is say dead ball contact has to meet the same criteria as a Flagrant 1 personal foul.

The Flagrant 1 personal foul rule reads:

4-15 Art. 2c

Flagrant 1 personal foul. A flagrant 1 personal foul is a personal foul that is deemed excessive in nature and/or unnecessary, but is not based solely on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:
1. Causing excessive contact with an opponent;
2. Contact that is not a legitimate attempt to play the ball or player, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting;
3. Pushing or holding a player from behind to prevent a score;
4. Fouling a player clearly away from the ball who is not directly involved with the play, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting; and
5. Contact with a player making a throw-in.
6. Illegal contact caused by swinging of an elbow which is deemed excessive or unnecessary but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2 personal foul (see Rule 4-18.7)

BNR is exercising his judgement that this contact well after the whistle is excessive, which per my reading of 4-19-3 he is well within his rights to do.

Yes, thank you, that is the exact reasoning I use for judging such contact a Technical.

I do not call a lot of T's. I may want back a couple T's I've called on coaches, but I have never regretted any T I've ever called on a player. An overwhelming majority of the T's I have called on players involve taunting or dead-ball contact between players. I just don't tolerate foolishness between players that could lead to retaliation.

No, he's not. He's desperately trying to backpedal from his own admission that the book he's using is Websters rather than the rules book. He's freely put forward an normal basketball play which happens after the whistle as his poster child for his style of dead-ball contact technical which seems quite clearly what the committee is trying to prevent with their formulation.

I think it's quite clear that BNR is outside the spirit, if perhaps not the strict words, of the rule.

I agree with your points on this.

A player intentionally contacts an opponent during a dead ball and it is not just accidental bumping that neither meant to have occur, it can be a T. There is no reason to smack an opponent anywhere well after the ball is dead.

I'd humbly suggest that the key is the phrase "well after." In other words, was the contact a continuation of legitimate play that happened to occur after the ball became dead. Or was it a doofus committing an unsportsmanlike act to intimidate an opponent.

On the FT example, was it a "foul" by a player being aggressive and trying to make a basketball play of boxing out (nothing because not intentional within the spirit of the rule, even though he was trying to make contact to box out), or a thug trying to smack the shooter to make him think about being smacked while he shoots his next free throw (an unsporting act that is penalized as intentional dead-ball contact)?

I suspect that some, though not all, of the disagreement here is how the particular act is being pictured, and whether a particular poster is visualizing the cotnact as a natural (but late) part of the game or as a message being delivered by a thug.

Go and read his situation again. The contact is well after the whistle and it sounds like if the player had been able to block the shot I would have had a tech anyway for unsporting behaviour! I think you are not imagining this correctly or thinking this is a bang-bang play from whistle to contact. The way I read it, this contact is well after the whistle and thus excessive and unnecessary.

I agree with this stance...the standard of ignoring dead ball contact unless it would be an intentional or flagrant personal foul deals with contact that can/does during the immediate action after the ball is dead.

I don't think you can literally apply that standard for situations that are well after the play....and honestly, I don't know many officials that would. What is considered excessive has to be in the context of the situation in the game. Slapping down and hitting a player on the wrist while he's holding the ball...personal foul during a live ball. If he does the same thing five seconds after the ball is dead due to a whistle? That's excessive in the context of the game at that moment and deserves a T.

Agree 100% ... but for the sake of further discussion ...

If you give a T for slapping the ball out of an opponents hands 5 seconds after the whistle, could you not have a double Technical for since the other player clearly failed to "immediately pass the ball to the nearer official when a whistle blows".

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q-o2L9c0Tpk?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Are you asking realistically speaking? Immediate is relative. Is the official asking for the ball? If so, then there could be justification for giving a T. But in a situation like above...where officials are switching and it may not be clear if the official is ready for the ball or who the closet official will be? No, I don't think you would be justified.

The rule is there to penalize situations when an official asks for the ball and the player doesn't do so...usually be just placing the ball on the ground or throwing it in a direction other than to the official...usually in protest to a call.

Maybe in your games it is normal for people to throw their a$$ into someone nutz or slap them across the wrist when a play is dead, but not in my games.

I'm desperately backpedaling? Really? I've quite clearly stated my stance and the fact that I would have no problem explaining such a T to a coach or a supervisor.

Please be so kind to show me where I "backpedaled" from anything? I'm the only one in this thread who has actually posted rule book citations.

If we can go back to the OP and 'assume' this was a dead ball play, is not the play at hand a defender blocking out the free throw shooter? And at that, some are determining or "reading the mind" of that defender that he is intentionally contacting him "below the belt" with a specific purpose, thus warranting a technical foul?

I'm not sure I could go there unless there were prior plays in this game that would lead me to a solid conclusion of the defender's intent on the block out.