Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
"Taunting" is one type of "unsporting" foul (10-3-7 from '06-07 book). I'm not saying CT can't treat it as an automatic flagrant, but that's not what is in the FED book.
|
Sorry if I wasn't very clear. Connecticut does not treat taunting as an automatic flagrant foul, but it does treat a flagrant foul as an automatic ejection for the next game, as well as what's remaining of the current game.
Also, I was referring to 4-18 Fighting, which seems to draw together unsporting acts, such as taunting, with fighting, especialy when we move into 10-3, and 10-4. Specifically, a taunt that instigates some type of retaliation, is a fight, defined by 4-18, and a fight, by Article 9 Penalty, is always flagrant.
Here in Connecticut, we have no problem calling flagrant fouls, but we're always careful to remember that the call will have ramifications beyond our game. If we use the verbiage taunt, it might also, and very often, include verbiage involving the word fight, which by Article 9 Penalty, is always flagrant. If we use the word unsporting, we can, if we chose, slide around the word fight, and simply give technical fouls that have a harsh penalty within that game; if not foul shots due to offsetting, then we will have fouls that count toward disqualification, and fouls that will count toward the bonus, or double bonus.
I try to stay away from the word taunt word unless I believe that the act is so unacceptabe that, besides the penalties that would occur in my game, the player will sit out the next game, this season, post season, or next season.