First Fighting Ejection

[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

[Geof]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

It is pretty simple. And maybe that is why it is written the way it is written. The wording makes it pretty black and white. I don't agree with it.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

The point I was making is that if the comments are so over the top as you stated, that person is being tossed regardless of the other player's reaction. If the comments aren't vulgar or abusive, that person's ability to stay in the game rests upon his opponent's reaction. Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether that is a proper punishment.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

I refuse to be the person who blindly accepts something without either understanding it or questioning it. The rules should be enforced as they are written, but that shouldn't ever deter someone from trying to discuss the validity or reason for a rule.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Geof

It is pretty simple. And maybe that is why it is written the way it is written. The wording makes it pretty black and white. I don't agree with it.

OK, and what are you going to do with it happens to you in a game?

Originally Posted by Geof

The point I was making is that if the comments are so over the top as you stated, that person is being tossed regardless of the other player's reaction. If the comments aren't vulgar or abusive, that person's ability to stay in the game rests upon his opponent's reaction. Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether that is a proper punishment.

You realize a lot of fights are not going to be that simple right? You realize that fights might take place without you even knowing what was said and that you only see the main reaction but never hear the words exchanged? And not all situations with fighting are situations where actual words are said. The common example is clapping in someone's face and getting a reaction like a punch. The rule covers all those situations as a fighting if the end result is physical contact or attempt at physical contact like a punch, kick or strike of some kind.

Originally Posted by Geof

I refuse to be the person who blindly accepts something without either understanding it or questioning it. The rules should be enforced as they are written, but that shouldn't ever deter someone from trying to discuss the validity or reason for a rule.

That is certainly your right. Just keep in mind if you do not enforce this rule when it happens, you might not work for the people you wish to work for. I am certainly not asking you to accept the rule, but constantly questioning the rule is also not going to help add anything when a fight takes place. If you ignore the actions of the instigator, you will have bigger problems on your hands on that game and afterwards. We are in the age of video and people will question your actions if you do not properly enforce the rule. And your being indifferent in the rule is not going to be a good answer.

Peace

[Refhoop]

Personally, I use this forum as an opportunity to get clarity on rules and the spirit of the rules. The bantering about the validity of any rules doesn't prohibit me from enforcing those rules. I find that reading your commentary helps me better understand the who, what, when, why and how...
Thanks for keeping it real!

[BlueDevilRef]

Originally Posted by Refhoop

Personally, I use this forum as an opportunity to get clarity on rules and the spirit of the rules. The bantering about the validity of any rules doesn't prohibit me from enforcing those rules. I find that reading your commentary helps me better understand the who, what, when, why and how...

Thanks for keeping it real!

EXACTLY why I am here as well. Being discerning about the rules actually helps me understand and make accurate application of them. Or at least that is my hope, to understand more in order to improve


I wish I had a cool signature

[Pantherdreams]

My only concern (and what I inferring in what others are writing) would be if the fight response is an overreaction on the part of the 2nd player. While I agree that if someone does something to start a fight and gets hit they are both culpable, we can't seem to agree on what exactly an "unsporting" act that leads to a fight might be. Some we know when we see it but others seem to be contextual and an overreaction.

Examples w/context:

A) Its been a physical game all game. Players making lots of contact on cutters, rebounding and post position are physical contests. You get all the ones you should, teams are just battling hard. Team A continues to get the worse of it on the scoreboard and aren't handling it well. Late in the game the same play that has been happening all game on a cut or rebound happens (maybe its a foul you call, maybe its not) A5 jumps up and starts to swing at B5. I can't say what A5 did was unsporting but it did result in B5 swinging. Now they both have to go?

B) B2 makes a tough and 1 layup through contact. Comes out celebrating. Something in the celebration either for cultural/personal reasons or just out of frustration causes A4 to jump and start swinging? Do they both go? What if the celebration was something we would tell the kid to knock off or even T up - do they both go now?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

My only concern (and what I inferring in what others are writing) would be if the fight response is an overreaction on the part of the 2nd player. While I agree that if someone does something to start a fight and gets hit they are both culpable, we can't seem to agree on what exactly an "unsporting" act that leads to a fight might be. Some we know when we see it but others seem to be contextual and an overreaction.

Examples w/context:

A) Its been a physical game all game. Players making lots of contact on cutters, rebounding and post position are physical contests. You get all the ones you should, teams are just battling hard. Team A continues to get the worse of it on the scoreboard and aren't handling it well. Late in the game the same play that has been happening all game on a cut or rebound happens (maybe its a foul you call, maybe its not) A5 jumps up and starts to swing at B5. I can't say what A5 did was unsporting but it did result in B5 swinging. Now they both have to go?

B) B2 makes a tough and 1 layup through contact. Comes out celebrating. Something in the celebration either for cultural/personal reasons or just out of frustration causes A4 to jump and start swinging? Do they both go? What if the celebration was something we would tell the kid to knock off or even T up - do they both go now?

Not a basketball official but I do lurk here a lot. From reading what people have written, isn't the distinction whether you call a technical foul? If you don't call a technical on A5 or A4 then their act wasn't part of the fight. But if you do call a technical foul on them and a fight results, then the technical from A5 or A4 retroactively becomes part of that fight. (If you didn't call it, then they didn't commit an unsporting act?)

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

My only concern (and what I inferring in what others are writing) would be if the fight response is an overreaction on the part of the 2nd player. While I agree that if someone does something to start a fight and gets hit they are both culpable, we can't seem to agree on what exactly an "unsporting" act that leads to a fight might be. Some we know when we see it but others seem to be contextual and an overreaction.

Examples w/context:

A) Its been a physical game all game. Players making lots of contact on cutters, rebounding and post position are physical contests. You get all the ones you should, teams are just battling hard. Team A continues to get the worse of it on the scoreboard and aren't handling it well. Late in the game the same play that has been happening all game on a cut or rebound happens (maybe its a foul you call, maybe its not) A5 jumps up and starts to swing at B5. I can't say what A5 did was unsporting but it did result in B5 swinging. Now they both have to go?

B) B2 makes a tough and 1 layup through contact. Comes out celebrating. Something in the celebration either for cultural/personal reasons or just out of frustration causes A4 to jump and start swinging? Do they both go? What if the celebration was something we would tell the kid to knock off or even T up - do they both go now?

A) NO
B) NO

Neither of these plays have anything to do with a deliberate dead ball shove that leads to a fight. One is live ball contact, like a block/push/hold/whatever, that led to the opponent throwing a punch. Both DO NOT get tossed for this. One foul is a common personal foul the other is a flagrant that results in DQ.

The other scenario is just as absurd. One player is happy, and as long as the celebration doesn't hit unsportsmanlike then we have a flagrant on the kid for throwing the punch and the kid who celebrated gets nothing unless there is retaliation.

side note: you could also have a clear shove during a live ball that leads to a fight where both players would get tossed. You have to judge the action as one that is instigating or "non basketball" as I like to think of it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

My only concern (and what I inferring in what others are writing) would be if the fight response is an overreaction on the part of the 2nd player. While I agree that if someone does something to start a fight and gets hit they are both culpable, we can't seem to agree on what exactly an "unsporting" act that leads to a fight might be. Some we know when we see it but others seem to be contextual and an overreaction.

I do not recall the rule saying you have to eject an instigator. This is why all of us get paid the big bucks. The rule is only so that you do not only punish the person that threw the punch, but the actions that proceeded it also matter. If you judge that no instigator was involved, then you have no instigator. But if a clear unsporting action proceeded the "strike" you consider the instigator and their actions fighting.

Do not make it so complicated.

Peace