View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 30, 2019, 11:47am
BillyMac BillyMac is offline
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 22,952
Is This A True Statement ???

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
Well then that is up to the state, but by rule, there is no difference. But either way you are supported for a Flagrant Act.
All fighting situations are flagrant acts, but all flagrant acts are not fighting.

4-18 Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live.
Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1 An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms,
legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.
ART. 2 An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act
that causes a person to retaliate by fighting.

4-19-4: A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent
or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays
unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it
involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and
kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any
time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is
a flagrant act.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote