[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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. [/B]

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.
[/B][/QUOTE]Naw, I think that you're reading it that way in order to try and support your personal opinion of this debate. The problems still remain that:
1) The case book play does not state that the whistle went before the retaliation.
2) When B1 retaliated, his punch may have missed. It doesn't matter because it's still a fight as per R4-18-1. There goes your dead ball contact foul theory.
3) The whole scenario in this case book play is considered one act. If you didn't consider it that way, then the book call for what you are proposing above isn't a fight but a false double foul. Iow, a technical foul during a live ball for taunting followed by a separate technical foul during the succeeding dead ball for fighting. That's not what the case play says happened. The case plays says that A1's T was for fighting, not taunting.
3) Change that case book play play to A1 taunting by finger-poking. It extrapolates the same way. Double technical foul and the initial T involved contact. If you call it any other way, you're back to a false double foul.
4) Rule 10-3-4 still says that fighting is a technical foul. It doesn't differentiate between fighting during a live ball or fighting during a dead ball. If it's fighting during a live ball, you could have contact fouls called Ts.


Those citations support some of Mulk's suppositions, and negate yours. Might be wise to slow down on the "leave Dodge" talk to Mulk. You might be on a stagecoach too.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 27th, 2005 at 04:14 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]


JR:

I agree with you completely that the two CB Play's are confusing.

But in the Rule 4 CB Play, A1's taunting foul causes the ball to stay dead if it was dead when A1 taunted or to become dead if the ball was live at the time that A1 taunted B1. In either case, A1's foul is a technical foul and B1's foul is a dead ball contact foul and also a techncial foul.

And as I stated in my earlier post, the Rule 10 CB Play is just a run of the mill double personal foul between A1 and B1 with both players being disqualified if nothing else happens; bench personnel leaving the bench area to enter the court changes the double personal foul to flagrant technical fouls because A1 and B1's actions are now defined as a fighting.

I am not reading the CB Plays to support my opinion, I am reading them per the rules. I just think that the fighting definition could be better written and deleted all together. I think that the CB Plays handled the situations correctly by rule, but the fighting definition is confusing.

MTD, Sr.