[RandyBrown]

>>You really should be a bit more hesitant to disagree with his position on an actual rule. He simply said it's not relevant to the OP, and he's correct.

It would be helpful if one of you would state why you think 10-3-8 is irrelevant, so I know how to respond. If it is because it is covered within the definition of flagrant foul (4-19-4), I still disagree, because that is merely a definition (Rule 4) that happens to add the fighting foul (10-3-8) into the flagrant bucket, which 10-3-8’s stated penalty has already done. 10-3-8 is the actual foul (Rule 10) that NFR needs to consider. If it is because all fighting otherwise falls under the flagrant part of 10-3-7 when the ball is dead, because fighting is defined as a flagrant act under 4-19-4, I suppose that works, but only because 10-3-8 makes fighting a foul in the first place. 4-19-4 is only definitional, and it only says fighting is a flagrant act, not a flagrant foul—like it’s an afterthought. 10-3-8 is what establishes fighting as a foul. Using 10-3-7 to make 10-3-8 irrelevant in dead-ball situations seems kind of silly. Why not just consider 10-3-8 relevant whether the ball is live or dead? If that were the intent of the rule, the definition of fighting (4-18) would not need to specify that it applies when the ball is dead, would it, since “flagrant” would cover all of the dead-ball acts via 10-3-7? If this is why you find it irrelevant, then I think we are merely arguing semantics. We’re both getting to the same place. If it’s something else, let me try my argument another way: Using NFR’s OP, let’s say A3 “pushes” the shooter’s defender, B1, because A3 is upset by B1’s aggressive box-out of A1 following A1’s shot. Let’s also say A3 makes his push in the form of an aggressive box-out, as well, causing displacement, to avoid what it really is, retaliation, or retaliation designed to instigate a combative reaction that gets B1 ejected. If I have seen the whole play, I might want A3 gone, but the act, itself, I might not think is flagrant: “of a violent or savage nature,” “extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct.” It’s nothing different than what B1 did to A1—except for the state of mind that I inferred, making it combative. 4-19-4 does say fighting is a flagrant act, but I argue that you first have to use 10-3-8 to charge it fighting.

Essentially, I had the preceding happen following the second of two foul shots in a high-school JV game. I was T in 2-man. When turned my attention back to the lane after bringing in subs, the closest B on the lane was wide-eyed and animated, demanding to know if I just saw the shooter shove him. I’m clueless, as is my partner. Between shots, the two Bs closest to the shooter had met in the lane, and were returning to their spaces when I turned around. The shooter didn’t deny B’s accusation, so maybe they taunted the shooter while in the lane, and he retaliated with a shove, who knows. The ball got administered for the second throw as I watched the two Bs staring at each other across the lane, gesturing—I sensed trouble, but what am I going to do at that point? As the shot went up and in, both Bs went for the shooter. Because the excited one went early, he got there first, but after the goal, and delivered what would normally appear to be a personal foul in the form of a hard box-out on the shooter, who was still holding his arms up from the follow-through. The shooter went to the floor on impact, and I whistled simultaneously. I charged B1 with fighting, and ejected him. No one had a problem with the call, including the ejected kid, who knew he had just let his emotions get the best of him (we talked after the game). In my mind, the act didn’t meet the definition of flagrant, i.e., I would not call that act flagrant during an actual rebounding situation, so 10-3-7 doesn’t fit for me. 4-19-4 tells me fighting is a flagrant act, but I first have to charge fighting, and that’s what 10-3-8 does. It certainly was intentional, but this was a heated, competitive game, and if I had doled out a “common player technical foul” (take it easy, you know what I mean, now), the kid would have remained, and things would have escalated, I’m sure. We had no problems after the ejection. After logging it in the book, I went to the shooter’s coach, and said, “You know, I think your guy started that.” He said, “Yeah, that’s why he’s coming out after these foul shots,” and the kid never went back in—we were in the second quarter.

You can see that I have some basis for arguing 10-3-8 is relevant to NFR’s OP. If all you are willing to do is repeat, “No, it’s not,” you might as well not bring it up, at all. That reminds me of another thread I read a few days ago. An Administrator started a thread about a play situation Referee Magazine had analyzed involving a double-foul during an alternating-possession throw-in. Jurassic said it was an easy call, and condemned RM for getting it wrong. There was little or no rules analyses; I think Jurassic thought a mere definition solved it, and everyone except Scrapper went along (I don’t recall if you were in on that one, or not). In actuality, Scrapper and RM have it correct. My association covers this exact play situation in our study groups each year—both years that I’ve been there, at least. I think it was this play situation that I was told our state’s association requested an interpretation of from NFHS some years back. I didn’t have time to make a post at the time, but I will go back and post the analysis we use, if no one else has already done so.

>> No, it doesn't. It tells us to ignore the contact. Calling it "incidental" is misleading. You ignore the dead ball contact if it is not intentional or flagrant. It's that simple, and inserting terms like "incidental" into the equation is neither necessary or helpful.

We are also told to ignore incidental contact, it just doesn’t use the word “ignore”. I don’t know how you can say that 4-19-4’s subnote is not describing “contact with an opponent which is permitted and which does not constitute a foul,” 4-27. Is the contact referenced in 4-19-4’s subnote with an opponent? Yes. Is it permitted? Yes. Does it not constitute a foul? Yes. You haven’t made an argument denying any of this, assuming there is one to make, so I’ll leave it at that. Even if one could be made, I don’t see a purpose to saying it doesn’t meet incidental’s definition. They have the same affect—no call, ignore. I agree that it is not necessary, but I find it helpful, because incidental contact is a bit of a gray area for new officials, and 4-19-4’s subnote tightens it up a little with a play situation. Let me know if you see harm in that, somehow.

>>Really? The answer to this question is somewhere around 47 times out of 48. Or have you called quite a few rebound pushes in your 18 month career?

I’m not sure you understood. Without specificity, I don’t know what you are arguing. Mine is a lead-up question to the one that follows it, and then on to the question that NFR’s OP presents. In the sense that I mean “intentional”, here, 10-6 fouls based on 4-37 definitions are virtually always the result of the offender intending to perform whatever illegal act was performed. They don’t accidentally put two arms into the front or back of their opponent, and push them under the basket. They intend to do it. On its face, your statement is suggesting that what 4-37-2a,c,d define as illegal is accidental 98% of the time. I know you don’t mean that, but I can’t tell what you do mean.

>>Then you should be calling them. The fact is, I think your judgment should be questioned if you think these are intentional pushes and you see them often.

I mean it in the sense that they are not accidental, not that they are “intentional fouls”, 10-3-7, which is defined as “neutralizing an opponent’s obvious advantageous position.” As an official, I have seen very few pushes that meet NFR’s OP scenario, very very few. I never intimated how many I saw. I said of those that I did see (including as a fan for thirty years), they are intentional (“not accidental”). Do they neutralize? Some, probably, but I can’t recall ever calling an intentional foul (10-3-7) in that situation. Hopefully, this clears up what has got to be some misinterpretation of what I said. Although, because you don’t cite what you refer to, I can’t be certain of what you mean, either.

>>Wouldn't have made a difference, chief.

Is your name Rich? I didn’t think so.