First Fighting Ejection

[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.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by 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. 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.

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? 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.

In the first no, in the second yes.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by 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. 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.

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? 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.

I agree with you. And these are the type of situations that I'm talking about. My issue with the way the rule is worded is that in both of these situations, you instigated a fight, which results in ejection. Doesn't seem like fair adjudication.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

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?

I actually have NO PROBLEM dumping both players in this situation. Yes, A1 has already received a T for his taunt, but the taunt is what led to the hit by B1. A1 took that risk when he opened his mouth to begin with.

[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

[Geof]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

Agreed. You either enforce the rule and stop making excuses or consider something else to do.

Peace