View Single Post
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 06:06pm
Jurassic Referee Jurassic Referee is offline
In Memoriam
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,213
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
Yeah, but. True, the case play you cite calls it a double personal, although, as stated above, I have a problem with it. Next, one size doesn't fit all. Same play, except A1 swings and misses, B1 returns fire and lays him out. Double flagrant, both are gone. A1 foul cannot be personal because there was no contact.
yeah, but.

What difference does it make if you have a problem with it? You have the same problem with blarges. There's rules I don't particulary like either. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

And one size does fit all unless you want to change the parameters of the "all". In the play being discussed, "all" is all double contact fouls for fighting during a live ball. You're talking about a completely different play re: the missed swing and subsequent retaliation. Now you're into an initial non-contact situation where you penalize the total act. Apples and oranges....and a completely different "all". And you use different rules for the oranges. In the missed swing followed by retaliation, you use case book play 4.18.2 as a guide and issue a double flagrant technical foul. The rules concept remains the same ball contact fouls are personal fouls and live ball non-contact unsporting acts are technical fouls. One rule for the apples; one rule for the oranges.
Reply With Quote