Wed May 19, 2004, 01:17pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,674
|
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Fighting is not always a T.
Quote:
Originally posted by davidw
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
If you considered it fighting though, it's a T (10-3-10) no matter if there is contact or not (4-18-1) and it's also flagrant (4-18).
|
Camron,
This really is not true. Everyone who reads this board needs to know or be made aware that fighting is not always a T. Even though 10-3-9 (you accidently cited 10-3-10) in the rules book says, "...Be charged with fighting."
I would refer you to 4-19-4 for the definition of a flagrant foul, and ...
If you check the case book, you will see that fighting during a dead ball is a flagrant technical foul, while fighting during a live ball is a flagrant personal foul. Look specifically at 10.4.4 Situation A for the live ball ruling, and 10.4.4 Situation B for the dead ball ruling.
|
The case you've mentioned does indeed say that. What we have is the case book contradicting the rule book since 10-4-9 quite clearly states that fighting is a T (with no qualification on live/dead ball). I'll accept that the case book is probably the right thing to do in spite of the rule book.
Even still, it's not as simple as live ball = personal and dead ball = technical.
Fighting during a live ball is still not neccesarily a flagrant personal. When, during a live ball, A1 throws a punch that doesn't land, it is still fighting. However, since there is no contact, it can't be personal...this one is a T.
I would also assert that you could have a swing that immediately kills the ball followed by contact (perhaps on a 2nd swing). If you catch the first swing, it's a T since its called before contact occurs.
|
Cameron, Juulie and others,
Cameron I'm very much 'leaning' (continuing the tree metaphor--a little) towards your analysis. Juulie, thanks for the post; may I offer a similar but in some ways different sitch? Others, I would hope for some feedback as well.
Late this past season, A1 (point guard) near end of 2nd Q. bringing ball up near mid-court and far sideline with lots of pressure from B1 & 2. A1 is not liking pressure looking to me for help (wanting me to call a foul) no foul, good defense. B1 steals ball and heads towards his basket, A1 lashes out forcibly with elbow and forearm with hand in fist position towards B2 still near him, no contact. Tweet! Signal 'T'.
Snaqwell, here is where I depart from you a bit. I too, like Juulie, did not want to toss the kid. I chose to label his action 'unsporting' and meriting the technical without the 'flagrant' attached. Could have--maybe should have gone with the flagrant, but made the judgement at the time to do as already stated. Coach did pull the kid not bringing him back till late in 3rd Q. Had coach not pulled player, I was prepared to speak to coach, strongly suggesting he take control, but coach was on top of it. No more problems from A1 rest of game.
I learned later A1 has had a slight reputation for being a little undisciplined and a tendency to lose his temper at times (neither my partner nor I had this info going into the game). Had same team a couple of weeks later in play-offs. Obviously, I had my eye on A1. No problems with A1 the whole game. In fact turned out to be a great game.
According to A1's actions my call does not appear to be supported by the book, but I still feel I made the right call. Since no contact, I didn't have the option of calling intentional--no bail out there. A1's action probably constituted 'fighting', but since no contact I had to go with the T and chose the 'unsporting' route not the flagrant. Was I totally off base on this one?
|
If the kid had a reputation of losing his temper, as you found out later, do you really think you helped the kid by letting him slide?
I honestly am surprised that I'm in the minority here, if you throw a punch you are gone. Period.
It does not matter if it was a "girly-hit" or a miss it is still fighting, and they should be ejected.
|