First Fighting Ejection

[bas2456]

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?

[johnny d]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bas2456

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 Hoffman 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. I spoke with my assignor tonight, who is also one of the lead clinicians for the state, and he wasn't 100% sure whether or not we handled the resumption correctly. What do you think?

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.

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by johnny d

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.

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

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.

[BigCat]

4-18-2

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by bas2456

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.

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.

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[just another ref]

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.

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.

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bas2456

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.

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

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

[Refhoop]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

"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.