Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
You penalize the total act including retaliation.
Are you seriously trying to say that if there's a fight, we always need to catch whomever threw the first punch? The first punch would be a flagrant personal foul and an immediate retaliation would be a flagrant technical foul?
If that's the logic you're using, I suggest you contact your IAABO board interpreter and get him to run that one up the line for you. If you don't think the language of the different case book plays that I cited applies, nothing further that I can say would be of any help or value.
Please let us know the answer though when you get one back.
|
First of all, where did I say we always need to get the first punch. Frankly, that seems to be what the case plays apply to, a fight where we don't know the first punch; and it frankly doesn't matter whether you call double personals or double technicals because the administration is identical.
Second, what did I say that could even imply I was thinking that. I'm not saying that at all. I'm not even thinking it.
I'm asking about a situation where the first punch is obvious, and there's a 2nd punch that comes after the whistle but pretty damned quickly.
I'll spell it out again, only slightly different:
1. A1 punches B1.
2. B1 falls to the floor.
3. R blows his whistle for the fight.
4. B1 gets up and throws a punch at A1, but he misses.
Are you calling: A flagrant double T (first foul was live ball contact)? A flagrant double personal (second foul was dead ball no-contact)? A false double?
I recognize this is largely academic, in that actual administration is going to likely be a double foul, no shots. But it's academic exercises like this that help me understand rules better.
I'm ok with calling the video a flagrant personal foul, based on the case plays even though I think either the case play or the rule needs to be revised to match the other.