Fight!!!!!!!

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Forget that he was punched by #23 Black. Now what would you call for #10 White shoving the opponent as he did?

No...but he did...

Forget white #10 shoved black #23 in the torso... lets say he shoved him like that in the head/face.... dumping white #10 now?

[representing]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That rules tells us that a non-fighting act, such as taunting, can turn into an act of fighting and warrant a flagrant technical foul, IF THE OPPONENT RETALIATES BY FIGHTING. It does not work in the reverse order.

Ok, gotcha now. Thanks for the clarifying that for me. So then yes, I would DQ both of them. He did retaliate by pushing, which lead to an even bigger fight.

I honestly think after that punch, if the kid didn't push back, this whole thing wouldn't have started. Doesn't look like anything was brewing up until that push after the punch happened.

[RichMSN]

Originally Posted by tjones1

No...but he did...

Forget white #10 shoved black #23 in the torso... lets say he shoved him like that in the head/face.... dumping white #10 now?

But he didn't. So what's yer pernt?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

I think the first one has got to be flagrant. It was way, way past anything related to basketball.

As far as all the aftermath, you do the best you can to keep track of who's where, and try to remember the rules.

I also think that W kid chest-bumping the spectator, and doing some inciting before that was flagrant. And that crowd cheering for whatever was also way scary. I'd rather see them hurling invective and screaming angrily than cheering for their opponents being bad. That really bugs me.

Flagrant for the kid in white pumping up and celebrating with his crowd? Wow.

I posted the time remaining and the score already in this thread. I believe that the crowd was cheering because they were about to win, despite all the mess from the flare up.

Frankly, I was amazed how calm all of the people standing along the end line were during the altercation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by representing

Ok, gotcha now. Thanks for the clarifying that for me. So then yes, I would DQ both of them. He did retaliate by pushing, which lead to an even bigger fight.

I honestly think after that punch, if the kid didn't push back, this whole thing wouldn't have started. Doesn't look like anything was brewing up until that push after the punch happened.

So following the shove by White #10, which opponent retaliated by fighting? Please specify the offender and what he did that constituted fighting.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

No...but he did...

Forget white #10 shoved black #23 in the torso... lets say he shoved him like that in the head/face.... dumping white #10 now?

My point is judge each action on it's own merit. The only basis in the rules for doing otherwise is the specific provision in 4-18-2. My advice to not get caught up in the emotion of the situation.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My point is judge each action on it's own merit. The only basis in the rules for doing otherwise is the specific provision in 4-18-2. My advice to not get caught up in the emotion of the situation.

I agree... and do so.

I'm just saying a kid punched another kid, then that kid shoved/pushed that kid.

I'd be surprised if the Fed said the shoving/pushing wasn't flagrant...but I could be wrong.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I agree... and do so.

I'm just saying a kid punched another kid, then that kid shoved/pushed that kid.

I'd be surprised if the Fed said the shoving/pushing wasn't flagrant...but I could be wrong.

If the two actions clearly aren't on the same level, then the penalties shouldn't be either.

The punching of an opponent is obviously flagrant. However, the shoving of an opponent may or may not be. I think that the shove to the back of the head that black #23 delivers to white #5 is flagrant, but that the shove from white #10 to black #23 is at the level of an intentional technical foul for dead ball contact.

Just my opinion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I agree... and do so.

I'm just saying a kid punched another kid, then that kid shoved/pushed that kid.

I'd be surprised if the Fed said the shoving/pushing wasn't flagrant...but I could be wrong.

As Nevada said, an act that instigates a fight is itself a fight. Not the other way. If the 2nd act is not a fighting act, it is not a fighting act.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by representing

10-4-5

Coach wasn't beckoned on from what i can see in the video. He get's a Techincal foul.

Player left bench during a fight, all of them at DQ'd regardless. For each offender that gets involved with a fight, that's an additional Technical. All the player that left the bench, I don't think they got involved with fighting, but only came on to calm things down. Only one T is given to bench, which is also an Indirect to the coach. Coach now has one T on himself and an indirect from bench.

Since white doesn't seem to have anyone leaving bench, you shoot two FTs only and ball is at POI.

Did I read this right accordingly to the rulebook? I hope you guys are proud of me for actually opening up a rulebook now before running my mouth haha.

Coach was beckoned...trust me...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'm not sure I even give him a technical foul for the shove. It was a fairly mild reaction for getting punched in the face.

OK, I probably would, but it certainly wouldn't be flagrant.

Agree with a regular "T", at most. The kid was defending himself. He pushed an opponent away who had just nailed him; he didn't swing back. What was he supposed to do? Stand there and let the kid take another shot?

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Coach was beckoned...trust me...

Absolutely.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My take would be:
A. Flagrant personal foul on #23 Black for the two-handed shove to the back of the opponent's head (White #5). I believe this action warrants more than an intentional personal foul.
B. Flagrant T to #23 Black for striking opponent in the face during the dead ball period. This gets reported as fighting.
C. Retaliation shove by White #10 warrants a technical foul. I don't believe that it has to be considered fighting. This would form a double techinical foul with B.
D. For Black #23, #14, #12, #21, and #20 were players in the game at the time. #22, #34, #15, #10, a couple of coaches, and a team member in a warm-up shirt which covers his number, come off the bench. I don't see any of them actually fight.
E. The penalties for D is that all from the bench are DQ'd, ONE indirect to the HC, and TWO FTs to the opponent.
F. Summary: Black #23 is DQ'd, along with all non-players listed in D. White #5 shoots 2 FTs (A). No FTs for double T (B and C). Anyone from White shoots 2 FTs (D). White's ball at the division line opposite the table.

If you're going to DQ "all from the bench", then you must also be including the head coach in that as not being beckoned and DQ him also. And if you do include the head coach in the "all from the bench", he not only gets DQ'd along with being charged with an indirect "T", he also gets charged with a direct "T" that is penalized. You'd have an additional 2 FT's for that.

If you considered the head coach beckoned and not part of the "all from the bench" though, I'd agree with your take above.

On the original foul called, I'd also agree that it should be flagrant but as always that's a straight judgment call. I wouldn't second-guess anyone who called it an intentional personal foul. I personally can't see a TC foul only though for an act like that.

[Nevadaref]

I actually meant the people whom I listed in D.
However, beckoned or not doesn't matter in my state. The Head Coach is allowed to come out to break up the situation. He is not penalized as long as he is helpful. That's a state reg.

[RichMSN]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Agree with a regular "T", at most. The kid was defending himself. He pushed an opponent away who had just nailed him; he didn't swing back. What was he supposed to do? Stand there and let the kid take another shot?

We should talk about this more.

I gotta say, my first reaction was nothing at all on the player in white. After taking a punch to the face, his reaction was pretty mild and I could see myself not penalizing this at all. Am I the only one who is (sorta) willing to go there?