First Fighting Ejection

[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.

[BlueDevilRef]

Originally Posted by deecee

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

Yep!


I wish I had a cool signature

[Geof]

Originally Posted by deecee

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

Ideally, yes. But people aren't robots.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Geof

Ideally, yes. But people aren't robots.

Ahh the good old "people aren't robots" argument to argue against crappy behavior in life and basketball games. Robots that act out of line get decommissioned. To bad we can't do that with a-holes.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by deecee

Ahh the good old "people aren't robots" argument to argue against crappy behavior in life and basketball games. Robots that act out of line get decommissioned. To bad we can't do that with a-holes.

Robots don't really "act out of line." They might not function as they were designed to, but to say robots "act out of line" implies they are acting with malice or ill intent. We haven't gotten to that point in society yet.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

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

Originally Posted by Geof

Ideally, yes. But people aren't robots.

Welp, there are penalties for folks who don't have the discipline of a robot.

Or to put it this way, B1 shouldn't punch A1 just because he got pushed, but B1 is not a robot.

I do not want to work games with officials who make excuses for unsportsmanlike behavior.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Welp, there are penalties for folks who don't have the discipline of a robot.

Or to put it this way, B1 shouldn't punch A1 just because he got pushed, but B1 is not a robot.

I do not want to work games with officials who make excuses for unsportsmanlike behavior.

And I don't want to work with officials who can't discuss topics without being derisive.

No one is making excuses. We are discussing the the merits of the punishment.

[mutantducky]

I don't have any issue ejecting both players.
I'm just wondering about the verbal one.

Say you have this. Player A1 blocks B1, then says something along the lines of get that out, or weak. whatever. Something that rises to the level where you give the player a T. Nothing too bad like racial or loud swearing, but sending a message that sort of thing is inappropriate. B1 gets angry because of the taunt and hits A1. So you are going to eject both players here? That doesn't seem right to me at all. The technical was a fitting punishment. A1 couldn't have known that it would lead to a punch. There would be situations where a taunt could reasonably be seen as "fighting words" and maybe ejecting both is the right thing to do but in my situation this is just a regular T and nothing too serious that I'm sure many of us have called.

Or this one which happened to me in a game. Two players on the ground after a loose ball. One is on top, doing that slowly getting off the other. Being a jerk about it. The player on the ground pushes him off. Not in an aggressive way, just a regular push. Completely justified in my opinion, and my partner's who calls a T on the player who was being the instigator by taking his time getting off the other. His coach has no problem with the T and chastises the player. I guess we could have given a double T here. But say the instigator player with the T then hits the player who was on the bottom. Are we really going to eject both players because it could be argued the push started the fight? No one thought the player who pushed the other off should get a T. It would seem absurd if that could be considered a start of a fight thus both should be ejected.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Geof

And I don't want to work with officials who can't discuss topics without being derisive.

No one is making excuses. We are discussing the the merits of the punishment.

You're the one talking about people not being robots as an excuse for pushing somebody. That deserves derision.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Geof

Ideally, yes. But people aren't robots.

They aren't animals, either.

[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

[Geof]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

Well, technically, saying things like that constitute a flagrant tech and an ejection by themselves. "Vulgar" and "abusive" come to mind. No punches necessary.

Addressing the "other situations in life" comment.....Unfortunately its not illegal to be a jerk and say rude things. It is illegal to assault someone, however. What that person said to provoke you assuredly doesn't matter in the eyes of the law.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Geof

Ideally, yes. But people aren't robots.

You are right, then do not say anything at all. If you say nothing, no one can misinterpret or even react to you in such a way where you would get ejected. It is pretty simple.

Originally Posted by Geof

Well, technically, saying things like that constitute a flagrant tech and an ejection by themselves. "Vulgar" and "abusive" come to mind. No punches necessary.

Yes, but if you get a reaction you incited the fight and you are apart of fighting, not just a simple flagrant act.

Originally Posted by Geof

Addressing the "other situations in life" comment.....Unfortunately its not illegal to be a jerk and say rude things. It is illegal to assault someone, however. What that person said to provoke you assuredly doesn't matter in the eyes of the law.

If you say certain things to people, you can and will be charged with a crime and certainly will be if there is some kind of violence that ensues. You are not exactly accurate. But this is not a court of law, this is a game. The rule is simple and I think you will be better off just knowing the rule and enforcing it than trying to figure out "why" for everything of the justice in everything is often futile.

Peace