[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm just sitting back waiting for someone (maybe the Forum member who used to date Mary Struckoff in high school and has her email address) to come up with a definitive answer on this, but I did just take a glance at the 10-6 Fouls and Penalties Contact section, specifically 10-6-8 Fighting, and the word "technical" is not used anywhere in this rule, except in regard to indirect technical fouls to coaches who have players coming off the bench.

Various technical fouls are described in sections 10-1 through 10-5. Contact fouls, including fighting, are described in Section 6 Contact. However, 10-3-8 does say that it's a player technical to, "Be charged with fighting", and 10-4-1-g does say that it's a bench personnel technical for, "Being charged with fighting".

One answer is easy. If the fight takes place during a dead ball, everything is a technical foul. If however, during a live ball, a fight takes place ??? Could 10-3-8 only refer to a player who is fighting during a dead ball ???

I've been very lucky so far in my twenty-seven year career. Just a few simple one on one punches, by players, double fouls that led to ejections, and in the heat of the moment, and the fact that these rare events happened so long ago, I don't remember whether I, or my partner, called personnel, or technical, fouls. But I sure would like to know the proper way to deal with a live ball fight.

Billy:

I don't if the person, , who dated Mary in H.S. will come on the forum and answer your question but the NFHS and NCAA fighting rules pre-date Mary to the time when the late Dick Schindler, Hank Nichols and Marcy Weston (I think; I know it was not Barb Jacobs) were the rules editors of the NFHS, NCAA Men's, and NCAA Women's Rules committees respectively and I heard Dick and Hank speak in their capacity as rules editors for the NFHS and NCAA on this matter. AND: If, the official deems that the conduct of the player or players is a fight, the foul or fouls are technical fouls.

As we know, this is not the first time in the last five or six years that that NFHS and issued a Rules Intepretation or Casebook Ruling the was incorrect. People can search this forum for incorrect intepretation that appeared in the NFHS Rules Interpretations. The ironic thing about this Rules Intepretation Play was that there was an existing Casebook Play (that was identical to the Rules Interpration Play even thought it was not in the current Casebook) that gave an Ruling that was completely opposite of the Casebook Ruling and even quoted the same Casebook Play rules to justify the NFHS's ruling in the Rules Interpretation. Of course the Casebook Play Ruling was the correct ruling and it took multiple emails to Mary Struckhoff and Dick Knox of the the North Carolina HSAA (and the Rules Committee Chairman at the time) to convince the NFHS that the Rules Interpretation Ruling needed to be corrected to reflect the existion Casebook Ruling.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. If I dated Mary when she was H.S. I would still be in prison, .