Quote:
Originally posted by bob jenkins
Quote:
Originally posted by Skarecrow
I agree with all that it is intent #1, but I don't believe that situation #3, taunting, can fit in the definition of Article 1--there is no striking--therefore, you cannot have a flagrant fighting rule....striking is required....
|
Not true. If you taunt, and B1 retaliates by fighting, you are also charged with fighting.
|
The case play above (#1) is fairly straightforward. The taunting appears to have been designed to instigate a forceful reaction from A1's opponent. But is there a problem with the uniform application of the case play? Let's try this: A1 drains a 3 in an overtime period of a hotly contested game. A1 gives the throat slash signal to B bench and B1 and strikes A1 in retaliation. Based on uniform case play application, both players are out of here. It seems to me the officials should have to determine the intent of the taunt and determine if the response is within "reason" (bad term to describe this, sorry). The ruling of the case play bails us out and both A1 and B1 can be charged with fighting but I think that B1's response to a technical foul by his opponent was unreasonable by any measure and only B2 should be ejected. If my example of taunting directed to someone other than his direct opponent may generate a fight, why have the taunting rule at all and simply cover it all with "instigating a fight"; flagrant foul?