[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) A "push" isn't listed in R4-18-1 as being one of the acts that are deemed as automatically being a "fighting" foul. And R4-19-2 is telling us that any unsporting act other than a "strike, punch or kick" at an opponent can also be deemed a "fighting" foul, but only if there is retaliation to that unsporting act. Iow, a push can't be deemed "fighting" if there is no retaliation.

2) And you are reading that correctly, as per rule 4-19-4. That's the point. However, rule 4-19-4 is the applicable rule to use for a "push" without retaliation. You can't apply R4-18 and call a push as being "fighting" unless there actually is retaliation for that push.

The difference in choosing the correct rule to use is that if you try to apply rule 4-18, it means that the player must be disqualified. It's automatic with no judgment involved. That means that all pushes are flagrant. If you correctly use R4--19-4, you now can use your judgment as to whether the pushing act actually is flagrant or not. And I think that you will agree that not all pushes are automatically flagrant.

Make any more sense now?

JR,
I don't agree. The contact by the first player must be deemed fighting on its own. The second article clearly says unsporting act. According to the definition of an unsporting foul, it is a noncontact foul. So retaliation isn't applicable here.