First Fighting Ejection

[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.

[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.

[BillyClyde 68]

If they fight they must go!

[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

[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

[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 deecee

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

Ideally, yes. But people aren't robots.

[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.

[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.

[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.