First Fighting Ejection

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by johnny d

Both players should have been ejected, as the shove by A11 was the start of the fight. Add 1 foul to each teams foul total. No free throws. Award ball to team entitled to the AP throw in.

Originally Posted by AremRed

Eject both. Rule says to eject the original guy for the shove cuz it caused the other player to react by fighting. Flagrant tech for both, free throws cancel cuz it's a double tech.

Even the way you did it the free throws would cancel cuz it's still a double tech, one tech being an Intentional Technical and the other being a Flagrant Technical.

I see what you guys are saying. Rule 4-18-2. I wonder, though, how we can judge someone's intent to instigate. Was A11 shoving as a natural reaction/instinct, or was he trying to instigate B31 into a fight? Thinking back to the play, I thought it was the former, but that's just me.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bas2456

I see what you guys are saying. Rule 4-18-2. I wonder, though, how we can judge someone's intent to instigate. Was A11 shoving as a natural reaction/instinct, or was he trying to instigate B31 into a fight? Thinking back to the play, I thought it was the former, but that's just me.

Read the definition again. If a player commits an unsporting act that causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting that IS deemed an attempt to instigate.

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Read the definition again. If a player commits an unsporting act that causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting that IS deemed an attempt to instigate.

There ya go. Thanks.

[Nevadaref]

Of course, the wording of the second article in the fighting definition needs some work as an "unsporting act" may not be the same as an "unsporting foul", which is non-contact by definition.

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Of course, the wording of the second article in the fighting definition needs some work as an "unsporting act" may not be the same as an "unsporting foul", which is non-contact by definition.

I guess in thinking about it, what I don't understand is why intentional contact during a dead ball without retaliation is "just" a technical foul, while that same act that induces a retaliatory strike now warrants an ejection. The same act is penalized differently based on what a separate player does.

I can see where A1 pushes B1 while saying "come on, let's go" to B1, with his body language indicating he's ready to fight. That I get, but the play in the OP definitely wasn't that.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bas2456

I guess in thinking about it, what I don't understand is why intentional contact during a dead ball without retaliation is "just" a technical foul, while that same act that induces a retaliatory strike now warrants an ejection. The same act is penalized differently based on what a separate player does.

Same reason that running a red light is failure to yield, unless it causes a fatal accident, in which case it becomes vehicular homicide. (or whatever the proper legal term) One must be held responsible for the consequences of one's actions.

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Same reason that running a red light is failure to yield, unless it causes a fatal accident, in which case it becomes vehicular homicide. (or whatever the proper legal term) One must be held responsible for the consequences of one's actions.

So if I run a red light and the guy I cut off gets out of his car to physically assault me; I'll be charged with assault.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bas2456

I guess in thinking about it, what I don't understand is why intentional contact during a dead ball without retaliation is "just" a technical foul, while that same act that induces a retaliatory strike now warrants an ejection. The same act is penalized differently based on what a separate player does.

I can see where A1 pushes B1 while saying "come on, let's go" to B1, with his body language indicating he's ready to fight. That I get, but the play in the OP definitely wasn't that.

I've never liked this rule myself.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I've never liked this rule myself.

I'm not a fan of the way this rule is written either. If A1 pushes B1, A1's fate rests in how B1 reacts....Not a huge fan of that.

The way the rule is written, A2 verbally insulting B2 which results in B2 punching A2 in the face means they both get tossed. Just doesn't feel like the punishment fits the crime.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bas2456

I see what you guys are saying. Rule 4-18-2. I wonder, though, how we can judge someone's intent to instigate. Was A11 shoving as a natural reaction/instinct, or was he trying to instigate B31 into a fight? Thinking back to the play, I thought it was the former, but that's just me.

Follow the rule you've been pointed to. Since when is shoving someone a natural reaction? In fact, contact is not even needed to deem someone to be fighting.

Don't be a "yeah but" guy.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Follow the rule you've been pointed to. Since when is shoving someone a natural reaction? In fact, contact is not even needed to deem someone to be fighting.

Don't be a "yeah but" guy.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Yeah but...

I'm just wondering out loud so to speak.

I'm not planning on making up my own rules.

[Refhoop]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Follow the rule you've been pointed to. Since when is shoving someone a natural reaction? In fact, contact is not even needed to deem someone to be fighting.

Don't be a "yeah but" guy.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

"Sportsmanship is citizenship in the athletic arena"

Regardless of the laws/rules, we "the police" have to know and enforce them.
As police; its sometimes difficult to know when to be a "yeah-butt" or a "yeah but"
I'd argue that shoving can be a natural response: If someone falls on you, you catch an unintentional elbow to the face or some other accidental act by your opponent that draws blood or just really hurts... I'd say a player 13-50 may be unaware that they even shoved the other player when stricken with intense pain.
In the court of law - this is self-defense or at the least a primal instinct. I don't think we go tossing kids in these situations - especially if they are in obvious pain.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Refhoop

"Sportsmanship is citizenship in the athletic arena"

Regardless of the laws/rules, we "the police" have to know and enforce them.
As police; its sometimes difficult to know when to be a "yeah-butt" or a "yeah but"
I'd argue that shoving can be a natural response: If someone falls on you, you catch an unintentional elbow to the face or some other accidental act by your opponent that draws blood or just really hurts... I'd say a player 13-50 may be unaware that they even shoved the other player when stricken with intense pain.
In the court of law - this is self-defense or at the least a primal instinct. I don't think we go tossing kids in these situations - especially if they are in obvious pain.

I don't know what this has to do with the conversation.

There was a held ball, A11 shoves B31, B31 throws a punch at A11. That is a fight and A11's actions are deemed to be part of the fight. It is that simple.

Officials who think it is a natural reaction to shove another player after wrestling over a held ball are not officials I want working with me in tough, physical ball games.

[Refhoop]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I don't know what this has to do with the conversation.

There was a held ball, A11 shoves B31, B31 throws a punch at A11. That is a fight and A11's actions are deemed to be part of the fight. It is that simple.

Officials who think it is a natural reaction to shove another player after wrestling over a held ball are not officials I want working with me in tough, physical ball games.

Just trying to clarify what is and is not a fight aside from the above case - which is "simple"!
No argument about running an instigator or someone fighting.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by badnewsref

i don't know what this has to do with the conversation.

There was a held ball, a11 shoves b31, b31 throws a punch at a11. That is a fight and a11's actions are deemed to be part of the fight. It is that simple.

Officials who think it is a natural reaction to shove another player after wrestling over a held ball are not officials i want working with me in tough, physical ball games.

+1