First Fighting Ejection
 

Had my first fighting ejection tonight. Here's what happened:

Boys Freshman B, first game of the season for both teams.

Early second quarter, A11 and B31 are on the floor going after a loose ball. I blew the play dead for a held ball, and those two continue to try and wrestle the ball away from each other. We both saw A11 give a two handed shove to the chest of B31. B31 retaliated with a closed fist punch at A11. Neither of us saw any other players get involved, nor did we see anyone come off the bench. B's coach did come off the bench, but he didn't get involved in breaking up the boys.

My partner and I got together to talk and we decided we had a technical foul on A11 for intentional contact during a dead ball, and a flagrant foul on B31 for fighting. We explained the situation to the coaches and they understood what happened.

As for the resumption of play, we treated the situation as a false double foul. We shot two free throws for B on the technical by A11, followed by two free throws for Team A on the flagrant by B31. Team A got the ball at the division line following the free throws.

Funny thing was, nothing at all precipitated this. The game was physical, but not chippy. Not sure what made things escalate so quickly.

So how did we do? I'm particularly curious about the resumption of play part. What do you think?

Both players should have been ejected, as the shove by A11 was the start of the fight. Add 1 foul to each teams foul total. No free throws. Award ball to team entitled to the AP throw in.

More interested in how one of the lead clinicians for the state cannot tell you if you handled the situation correctly, nor if you handled resumption of play procedure correctly for how you chose to administer the play. That is scary! I am especially interested to know who the assignor is, although, based on your location and the name of one of the schools, I have a pretty good guess already.

Eject both. Rule says to eject the original guy for the shove cuz it caused the other player to react by fighting. Flagrant tech for both, free throws cancel cuz it's a double tech.

Even the way you did it the free throws would cancel cuz it's still a double tech, one tech being an Intentional Technical and the other being a Flagrant Technical.

First, you need to consult the definition of fighting in Rule 4. By rule, the first technical foul becomes a flagrant for fighting when the opponent retaliates with a fighting act, so you should have disqualified both players.
Second, in such situations it is better to deem the two technical fouls to make a double technical foul and resume the game with no free throws and your original held ball call.

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.

4-18-2

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.

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.

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.

I've never liked this rule myself.

Follow the rule you've been pointed to. Since when is shoving someone a natural reaction? In fact, contact is not even needed to deem someone to be fighting.

Don't be a "yeah but" guy.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Yeah but...

I'm just wondering out loud so to speak.

I'm not planning on making up my own rules.

"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.

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.

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.

If they fight they must go!

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.

+1

Punishment does not fit the crime
 

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.

Yep!


I wish I had a cool signature

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

Ideally, yes. But people aren't robots.

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.

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. ;)

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.


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

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?)

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.

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

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

From my reading of your play it looks like A11 and B31 are on the floor scrambling for loose ball. they are still on the floor and each gets a piece of the ball. you blow whistle. Players still wrestle for ball on ground. Players stand up. A11 shoves B31 and punch. Is that what happened?

When you see the tie up, get in there and start communicating right away. "Easy, enough," whatever and do it forcefully. Then stay with them as they get up and keep them apart. "you're all right, calm down etc" . Any time two players are in a tie up, either on the ground or standing, there is potential for bad things to happen. Even in a game with no prior issues. Dead ball officiating is very important.

I agree with the advice you give here, and normally I do that. I was the L as this happened in the front court at about the free throw line. I was beginning to close down as the incident happened.

As I said, nothing precipitated the fight. It caught us by surprise. It escalated quickly.

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.

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.

Question
 

First of all, fighting is one of the worst possible outcome in any game. The experience will make you better if you learn from it.

My question, so what was Coach B doing if not helping?

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.

In the first no, in the second yes.

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.

Not true. Situation 4.18.2: A1 dunks over B1 and then taunts B1. B1 retaliates and punches A1.

RULING: Both A1 and B1 are charged with a flagrant technical foul for fighting and are disqualified. A1's action is defined as fighting when the taunting caused B1 to retaliate by fighting.

The taunting would be classified as fighting based purely on how B1 acted after the actions by A1.

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

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.

:rolleyes:

Lots of things are natural responses, but athletes and coaches should know better. If you're going to make this argument, then you should consider the contact incidental and just penalize the player who threw the fist.

You won't do it in my games, but have at it.

They aren't animals, either.

No. The higher you go the expectation changes. I would tell a player to knock it off first. the difference between T and warning is in their delivery. more times than not its said in passing. A player yelling that in their opponents face = auto T --> this is the exception.

Geof I'm guessing you are new to officiating. Officiating is part science, and part art.

Frankly, I'm ok with it.

First, I'm definitely learning. It was my first player ejection, first ejection of any kind, so now I know how to deal with the aftermath. I'm glad this happened in a freshman B game on a Tuesday night, rather than a Friday night varsity game.

To answer your question, the whole thing was over pretty quickly. The coach I think wanted to help out, but by the time he came into my field of vision (my back was to the bench as this all played out), the players had been separated by their teammates.

I want to change the subject within the fighting discussion.

How many of you pregame for a fighting situation? I know it'll be in all of my pregames going forward.

Those of you who work three man varsity games, how do you delegate responsibility if a fight breaks out? Does one of you keep an eye on the benches while the other two watch the players on the court?

I'd like to hear how you all prepare for these situations.

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

Peace

I do on many occasions. Mostly I talk about how to prevent them and if they happen how we manage them. And since you cannot predict these from happening, you just go over the basics. But when it happens to you (hope that it does not) I always want to get some information from my partners before we decide what to do. When a fight breaks out, you will not have much time to be specific as to who does what. You might be the only one that sees a particular action and most of all you want to make sure you know who comes off the bench.

Peace

The pregame on this is good reminder. The off official needs to get a wide view and see who comes into the fray from outside. Saying numbers and colors might help, but it might also confuse you if you don't have someone taking notes. Some advocate going to the table and having them take notes.
If you have 3, then one can watch the benches, one can watch the non-fighting players, and one can stay in the eye of the hurricane.

Just out of curiosity....and this is a question for those who know the rules of NCAA and/or NBA, are the rules the same? That is, does doing something that causes someone else to retaliate by fighting result in an ejection?

NCAA--yes.
NFHS--yes.

Learned that part of the rule when I first learned the fight rules. It was always emphasized that an unsporting act that precipitates a fight is considered part of a fight. Great incentive for players to not do stupid stuff.

Don't know why any official would worry about the "fairness" of the rule or make excuses for why a player commits an unsporting act.

Good to know! Thank you for the information

We can debate the merits of the rule all day long, but it is pretty black and white as far as rules go: eject both. I think we can all agree that is how it reads, regardless of any literacy accusations. :)

Well, as it turns out, trying to discuss the merits of the rule turns into accusations of trying to make excuses for unsporting acts haha.

This was your post. ;)

Not a single person said anything about comments being penalized that were not unsporting for fighting, but that is your story right? (edited) Well here are your words, not mine. ;)

There is a difference between arguing what a rule should be and not knowing what the actual rule says. Again, all you have to do is look at your arguments. You did not realize that the rule for instigation was about an unsporting act like taunting or getting in a player's face (baiting). Just doing something that is a normal basketball play or even contact is not apart of this rule. You did not realize that and that is why you are getting called out for not understanding the rule.

Peace

Guess I'm not understanding your point....unless you are saying that something can't be unsporting if it is not vulgar or abusive.

I disagree with you. I understand the rule completely. And my argument this entire time has been as to whether the rule was fair or not to someone who does something unsporting that provokes a punch. I've never once said anything that went against the rule.

It sounds like most are ok with the way the rule is written, and I can understand that viewpoint. Its makes things black and white and easy to deal with.

What are you disagreeing with me about? I never said anything about this but what the rule states. I am not talking about fairness or even care about fairness. The rule is clear. I just stated that the what the rule is and how it is to be adjudicated. You are the one struggling with the rule and its application.

I did not say anything about agreeing with the rule. I actually do not agree or disagree with the rule at all. The rule written very clearly. But it is not easy to deal with if you do not even understand when an instigator of a fight has taken place. ;)

Peace

Well, let's see:




__________________________________________________ _____________

You wish they could keep a player in the game after his unsporting act leads directly to a fight. You have clearly stated that's what you want:

I don't feel sorry for players who are knuckleheads. Almost every fight in basketball is the result of one player committing an unsporting, flagrant, or intentional act directed towards another player. Players taunt opponents in order to induce a negative reaction. If that negative reaction is violent shove, a punch, or a kick, then too bad for the player who taunted, his butt is gone also.

Why any official wishes to keep such a player in the game is beyond comprehension.

I agree you never voiced your agreement/disagreement with the rule. I said "most people," i.e. the people who have replied to this thread.

No, I said I wasn't a huge fan of the way the rule itself is written. In certain situations, it doesn't seem like it would be a fair punishment.

Sure, I can see why you think its fair.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QZjJU-mtFU

:p

I pregame to do as much as we can to eliminate conditions that could lead to a fight. #1 on that list is dead ball officiating, #2 is no tolerance for knuckleheads.

Usually just calling fouls and staying on top of silly action during dead balls solves most problems.

Peace

This is how I read your point, for what it's worth.

Moderator note to all involved: No more personal insults.

Thank you. And my apologies.

Fights ...
 

Agree. Too bad it's most problems, not all problems, but I'll settle for most. What more can official can do?