Make the call

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rooster

For funsies, no one see this as a fighting act, worthy of flagrant fouls and disqualification?

Well, im pretty sure im the only referee who saw it...and no, it did not rise to a fighting act. It was BS but nothing id toss somebody over. Now, I would have liked to have called double Ts but that wasnt an option.

I used the phrase "shoved each other with attitude" because I was trying to describe something that wasnt flagrant but was more than a regular foul. Can a shove be a fighting act? Sure, but just because there was a shove doesnt mean it was a fighting act. You would have to actually...see it. Thx

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rooster

For funsies, no one see this as a fighting act, worthy of flagrant fouls and disqualification?

As described? No.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Adam

As described? No.

Agree. The definition of fighting involves a combative act such as a kick, punch, strike…things of that nature. A mutual shove does not rise to this level.

Rule 4....live it, love it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dad]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Agree. The definition of fighting involves a combative act such as a kick, punch, strike…things of that nature. A mutual shove does not rise to this level.

Rule 4....live it, love it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To be fair, it was a decent question as we can flagrant without any contact or attempt of it. Yeah the pushing is something, but who knows what provoked them.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Dad

To be fair, it was a decent question as we can flagrant without any contact or attempt of it. Yeah the pushing is something, but who knows what provoked them.

What you describe would be a flagrant technical, and you can always make that ruling, live ball or not. Taunt first, then mutual shove? Party on with your flagrant tech followed by a double tech if you'd like (all part of a false double foul master-sequence).

But as described, what we have is neither technical nor flagrant.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I brought this situation up because i dont like the fact that because the ball was live our only choices are double intentional fouls or flagrant. Flagrant is too severe for the situation im envisioning and double personals isnt severe enough.

Id like to have the option to call it a T. Player might change attitude knowing he gets another he is ejected and suspended. As a practical matter, if a player acts up again after we call the double personal we can just call that flagrant and toss him. I havnt thought too deeply about it but not sure why they dont allow us to call double Ts.

As this play is described it could never be a technical foul.

4.19.5 A technical foul is

a. A foul by a non player
b. A noncontact foul by a player
c. An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except a foul by an airborne shooter
d. A direct technical, charged to the head coach...in 10.6
e. An indirect technical charged to the head coach...in 10.5

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by OKREF

As this play is described it could never be a technical foul.

4.19.5 A technical foul is

a. A foul by a non player
b. A noncontact foul by a player
c. An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except a foul by an airborne shooter
d. A direct technical, charged to the head coach...in 10.6
e. An indirect technical charged to the head coach...in 10.5

Yes, I know. That's why I posted it. Some folks don't realize it.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Well, im pretty sure im the only referee who saw it...and no, it did not rise to a fighting act. It was BS but nothing id toss somebody over. Now, I would have liked to have called double Ts but that wasnt an option.

I used the phrase "shoved each other with attitude" because I was trying to describe something that wasnt flagrant but was more than a regular foul. Can a shove be a fighting act? Sure, but just because there was a shove doesnt mean it was a fighting act. You would have to actually...see it. Thx

So to clarify: You did NOT have two players square up to one another and then push each other, playground-style, with two pairs of arms extended? Was this just a "get off me" kind of thing?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Rooster

So to clarify: You did NOT have two players square up to one another and then push each other, playground-style, with two pairs of arms extended? Was this just a "get off me" kind of thing?

I'm sorry. I can't make it much clearer. 2 players came together just outside the lane above the block and shoved each other with attitude. Not sure what you mean by "square up" and "playground style."

It wasn't a basketball play but it wasn't enough to toss either of them.