Quote:
Originally posted by twref
With engaged I was trying to articulate B6 runs onto the floor, goes directly to A3 and screams at him-I have no idea why. A3 obstensibly does nothing and thus was not assesed any type of foul.
|
Then this is just an ejection, with no foul or other penalty of any kind
Quote:
|
I know none of you saw the play but I found it very difficult to DQ A2 and B2 for the kick (and miss) and the throwing of the ball. I believe we should have called them two seperate unsportsmanlike acts resulting in T's and each team should have shot two FT's. Do we have any flexability or do they have to be called fighting and DQ's?
|
A (deliberate) kick is a fight, whether or not contact is made. See the definitions in Rule 4. B2 responded to this. So, the acts must be considered simultaneous. We might have some leeway in assessing B2 with fighting, but I'd lean toward calling it this.
Quote:
|
Since there is no fight between A3 and B6 I think we all agree I kicked it by giving B6 a T-I should have simply ejected him. Does the B coach get an indirect?
|
No indirect on leaving the bench area during a fight or when a fight might break out.
Quote:
|
This still leaves the question of B6 coming on the floor the 2nd time. When is a player no longer a player? Since I had not as yet reported the ejection to the table is he still a player? If he's not a player then can any actions commited by this "individual" (fighting, flagrant T, team fouls etc.) result in a penalty to the team and/or coach? At the time I rationalized the "coach is responsible for his program" theory and thus gave him the 2nd indirect for B6's stupidity. If there is no penalty for a player who has been removed from the contest what would prevent the "individual" from doing anything he/she wants?
|
S/he might not be a "team member" anymore, but s/he's still "bench personnel." Again, see the definitions. Your judgment as to whether the act is flagrant or fighting. The only difference is the penalty for the following game(s).