Under NFHS rules what is the penalty for all single technical fouls?

You said you are calling this a tech "every time" so I'm assuming that you are calling it a tech in your HS games as well.

I've been involved in games that had fights as a player, coach, and an official. And that statement is oversused, case in point by you in this thread.

I would consider this a contact dead ball tech under NCAA 10-3-1d and award the ball to the offended team at the division line on either side of the court.

No. The NCAA standard is written right here as you posted.
"e. Contact dead ball technical foul. A contact dead ball technical foul occurs when the ball is dead and involves contact that is unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive, but does not rise to the level of a flagrant 2
contact technical foul."

The problem is that the rule uses the word "and" while you are applying it as if it said "or" in your attempt to justify calling a tech for just unnecessary contact during a dead ball.

You are fortunate that the powers where you are support your method because the rules book language does not.

Isn't contact that's unnecessary also unacceptable by definition? And the bar for excessive would be significantly lower during a dead ball.

I agree. Excessive is relative to the context...and that context isn't specifically demarcated by the status of the ball. If that were not the case, we'd have one of two results. We'd have a lot of T's for contact just after the whistle blows or we'd have to allow a lot of silly dead ball contact well after the whistle. The threshold shifts when the action is such that it is no longer connected to the live ball action.

ok so contact T. In this case the whistle blew, the play was clearly dead, and the GT player made contact. Not a flagrant 2 but a clear example of a contact dead ball technical. If you let that go, then what's stopping players in games from doing what he did? I've had games after a violation, when the defender will wrest the ball out of an offensive player's hand. That may not be a T, they are trying to get the ball back and play to resume quicker. But here there is contact and it does not seem incidental at all. IMO

errr, watch it out 33 to 38 seconds. The GT players knows there is a whistle. I don't know if it is just a stupid celebration that went over the top, but how in the world can you people say you'd ignore the contact he made? He clearly hits the EW player. It is a textbook case of a dead ball T.

per Nevada

This is not a textbook case -- clearly -- as many excellent officials have stated they wouldn't call it here.

This just wasn't unnecessary or excessive. There is some amount of time after the whistle where we allow the players to wind down before that would be considered unnecessary or excessive. If not, you'd have a bunch of silly T's every game whenever you had the possibility of a travel or a foul when the travel happens first or two or more possible fouls.

It is a matter of deliberately contacting the opponent when it is clear the ball is dead vs. brief continued play after the whistle.

I wouldn't call the T either, although I've worked with many partners who wouldn't hesitate to do so. I think a T could certainly be justified, though a minority of officials world call it.

Sorry, but it seems to me the very definition of sportsmanship involves intent, as would the opposite. I can't think of a single example of an unsporting tech I would call where the action wasn't deliberate. I'll bet you can't either, given that you're going with a dead ball contact T. I still don't see how you can do that for contact that is neither intentional nor excessive.

Even allowing for a moving threshold for "excessive", this doesn't even come close, IMO. It looks bad because the other guy had gotten his feet twisted into knots.

No, but it does if you're going to call it F1, unless it's excessive contact.

I'm trying to track your train of thought here. First, you say you're going with excessive contact, then you say you're going with taunting so you don't need the DB contact rule. Now you're back to DB contact, presumably so you can give the ball to the other team.

I don't see this as either. The contact is not excessive, and I don't think you can have a DBC technical foul if the contact isn't excessive based on the wording of the rule. I recognize what's "excessive" is up to judgment, but this isn't even that close to me. I wouldn't question a partner who called it on the floor because I still think random and quick technical fouls are good for the game overall.

You've got a better case for tuanting, IMO, taunting is directed at the opponent (the exception would be actions designed to draw attention to himself, but this isn't that). Unless I can tell for sure he's directing his actions at his opponent rather than getting a bit exuberant after forcing a travel, I don't think think I can justify a taunting T.

If the kid who traveled hadn't made himself so vulnerable and off balance, he doesn't fall and we're not having this discussion.

My judgment determines what is "unnecessary, unacceptable and excessive,". For some reason it offends your sensibilities when someone's judgment doesn't match yours.

A2 cuts through the paint, B3 sticks out his shoulder and knocks him off his path. Common foul

A2 jogs towards his bench for a time-out, B3 sticks out his shoulder and knocks him off his path. In my game it's a T, in your game it's a ....

A Mind Is A Terrible Thing To Change ...
 

... technical foul.

Good example of a common foul (not an intentional foul) when the ball is live, and an intentional (technical) foul when the ball is dead, for the same, exact, physical contact.

And, by the way, I was leaning toward siding with Nevadaref's, "There is no rule extant instructing the officials to judge contact one second after the ball becomes dead differently from contact five or ten seconds later" interpretation. Nevaderef may, by strict interpretation of the written rule, and definition, be correct, but sometimes we just have to officiate the game.

On the other hand, the definition (NFHS) of intentional foul does include the phrase, "but are not limited to", which may bolster BadNewsRef's interpretation.

On the other hand (am I running out of hands?) can't we just call such contact (A2 jogs towards his bench for a time-out, B3 sticks out his shoulder and knocks him off his path) an unsporting technical foul, which includes the (NFHS) phrase, "is not limited to, acts, or conduct such as", thus avoiding the entire intentional, not intentional, live ball, dead ball, debate, or is that taking the easy way out?

Now? Who do I want to antagonize the least, BadNewsRef, or Nevaderef; and how does, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", fit this situation?

Maybe, this way?

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.6080...4&pid=15.1&P=0

Cincinnati vs UK

Contact dead ball T...perfect example of contact that would be a common foul during live ball play....but called a T during a dead ball.