First Fighting Ejection

[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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Geof

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.

Why not? Keep your hands to yourself and your mouth shut.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Geof

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.

So I can insult you in a way that would start a fight. Just imagine what a player could say to someone like racial comments, personal comments or even sexual type comments that would all be inappropriate and now that person you said those things to gets to hit you as a result (as they would in just about any other situations in life) and now you are absolved because you did not throw a punch? Not sure I like that logic. This makes it easy.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Geof

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.

That's the chance you take when you commit an unsporting act.

A1's has no business pushing B1, and A2 has no business verbally assaulting B2.