Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Quote:
Originally posted by ronny mulkey
MTD,
I have no doubt that you are not going to let anyone poke someone in the chest. You and me are going to forget the "you can't call a tech "if contact occurs during a live ball" and do the right thing. My point exactly.
I don't think either you or me has a problem with sharing our opinions (no matter how unpopular) with this group, but please restate your question so that someone as simple as me can understand it.
Mulk
|
Ronny:
What do you mean that I am going to forget the "you can't call a tech if contact occurs during the a live ball?" Repeat after me: Illegal contact while the ball is live is a personal foul; it is not a technical foul.
|
Mark, can you explain casebook play 4.18.2 then? The way that I read it, the whole act described came during a live ball. The retaliation by B1 during the live ball involved illegal contact(a punch that was judged "fighting"),and this illegal contact according to this case play is called a flagrant technical foul.
Iow, we have 2 different case book plays about fighting during a live ball that state different penalties. CB4.18.2 says the fighting fouls are flagrant technical fouls--and CB 10.4.4SitA says that the fighting fouls are flagrant personal fouls.
|
JR:
I read NFHS Casebook Play 4.18.2 as follows: A1's taunting foul causes the ball to become dead if Team A had managed to get the ball out-of-bounds for its throw-in or to remain dead if Team A had not. That means that B1's punch is a dead ball contact foul and therefore a technical foul. Since A1's actions caused B1 to retaliate, we have a fight, by definition and both A1 and B1 are disquailified. I should point out that taunting by itself can be either a non-flagrant technical foul or a flagrant foul depending upon the nature of the taunt. If B1 had never retaliated and A1's taunt was of a non-flagrant nature, then A1 would not be disquaified. The CB Play does not tell us whether A1's taunt was a non-flagrant or flagrant foul, but if it was a non-flagrant foul, it became flagrant when B1 retaliated. But, before the fighting definition and the cancelling out of free throws for technical fouls, this situation would have been a false double foul. With Team B shooting free throws for A1's technical foul, followed by Team A shooting free throws for B1's technical foul and thenr receiving the ball for a throw-in at the division line opposite the table. And depending upon the severity of the taunt and the severity of the contact by B1 against A1 either one or both may or may not have been disqualified from the game for a flagrant foul.
NFHS CB Play 10.4.4, Sit. A is even more murkey. If the only fouls we have is A1 and B1 punching each other, what difference does it make if we define their actions as a fight or not. Both players are disqualified, no free throws are shot because this is what use to be a true double foul and what is now called a double personal foul. But when bench personnel start leaving the bench area, we now have problems.
I have been officiating basketball for 34 years and I probably should not say this, but I have had players mix it up on the court and be disqualified from the game because their actions were flagrant, but I cannot ever remember having bench personnel come on the floor to take part in the festivities. The only situation that came close to that was when fans rushed onto the floor of a boys' varsity game I was officiating in 1984 in Los Angeles when we had an intentional foul with less than two minutes left in the game, and I would rather not discuss that situation here right now.
I hope I have answered your question.
MTD, Sr.