Eastern Washington v Georgetown (Video)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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 ....

... 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?