Fight

[Adam]

A1 will get his two shots and A will get the ball at the spot nearest the foul by B1.

A would get 2 fts for the B member fighting, B would get two for having more players leave the bench. I'm canceling the FTs out and just going with A1's.

A's coach gets one indirect T. B's coach gets 2.

My question, were the bench players the only ones fighting?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Adam

A1 will get his two shots and A will get the ball at the spot nearest the foul by B1.

A would get 2 fts for the B member fighting, B would get two for having more players leave the bench. I'm canceling the FTs out and just going with A1's.

A's coach gets one indirect T. B's coach gets 2.

My question, were the bench players the only ones fighting?

This is exactly how I'm handling it.

I'm convinced that many officials spend little time on fight administration and hope that it never happens to them.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Rich

This is exactly how I'm handling it.

I'm convinced that many officials spend little time on fight administration and hope that it never happens to them.

Once they have one (or 2), they learn real quickly what they did wrong. I thought I had it down, but I still screwed it up.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rich

This is exactly how I'm handling it.

I'm convinced that many officials spend little time on fight administration and hope that it never happens to them.

That would be me...LOL

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[Shooter14]

Originally Posted by Adam

A1 will get his two shots and A will get the ball at the spot nearest the foul by B1.

A would get 2 fts for the B member fighting, B would get two for having more players leave the bench. I'm canceling the FTs out and just going with A1's.

A's coach gets one indirect T. B's coach gets 2.

My question, were the bench players the only ones fighting?

Yes just one bench player from B. He went after A player who was intentionally fouled.

[Shooter14]

Forgot to add, but I knew these cancelled out anyway; A1 (who was intentionally fouled) and B1 (who committed the intentional foul) received double technicals after intentional foul. This caused the players to clear bench.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

Forgot to add, but I knew these cancelled out anyway; A1 (who was intentionally fouled) and B1 (who committed the intentional foul) received double technicals after intentional foul. This caused the players to clear bench.

Ok, so then we have order of occurrence.

IPF FTs first shot by A1's substitute.

Then four TFTs for Team B (because Team A had two extra team members involved) followed by ball at division line.

One indirect to Coach A (for any number of players leaving the bench who do not participate) and two for Coach B (one for the same reason as above plus one for each fight participant, which in this case was one). So both coaches sit but can stay....for now.

[Shooter14]

Why does A1 have a substitute? He just got one technical foul. He wasn't ejected.

[Shooter14]

You had;

B1 intentionally foul A1

A1 and B1 chest up-double T's. (no ejection, just unsporting)

4 players off A bench come on the floor, 2 players off B bench come on the floor, one of those 2 B bench members participates.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Adam

A1 will get his two shots and A will get the ball at the spot nearest the foul by B1.

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

...IPF FTs first shot by A1's substitute.

Originally Posted by Shooter14

Why does A1 have a substitute? He just got one technical foul. He wasn't ejected.

This could be a HTBT situation, but I can't see a scenario where A1 doesn't get flagrant and tossed. Even if he doesn't throw a puch, the "chesting up" T described in the scenario should be considered a fighting act, and both A1 and B1 should be tossed, in addition to all bench personnel who came onto the court.

On a separate note, has there ever been a discussion of a rules change that would not require bench personnel coming onto the court to be ejected automatically? I understand the intent is to not add more people to the fight, but for those that run onto the court, you're getting tossed anyways, why not take a swing at a kid, and get all you can out of that ejection? Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for this, but it seems a stiff penalty when non-fight participants are reacting on positive instincts to break up a fight, especially when the penalty for trying to help or being an instigator is identical.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by frezer11

This could be a HTBT situation, but I can't see a scenario where A1 doesn't get flagrant and tossed. Even if he doesn't throw a puch, the "chesting up" T described in the scenario should be considered a fighting act, and both A1 and B1 should be tossed, in addition to all bench personnel who came onto the court.

On a separate note, has there ever been a discussion of a rules change that would not require bench personnel coming onto the court to be ejected automatically? I understand the intent is to not add more people to the fight, but for those that run onto the court, you're getting tossed anyways, why not take a swing at a kid, and get all you can out of that ejection? Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for this, but it seems a stiff penalty when non-fight participants are reacting on positive instincts to break up a fight, especially when the penalty for trying to help or being an instigator is identical.

The penalry for participating in the fight is extra FTs for each additional player. So there is a higher penalty for participating.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Shooter14

Why does A1 have a substitute? He just got one technical foul. He wasn't ejected.

I am making the assumption that if B6 came off the bench and "participated in the fight," that A1 and B1's Ts were both flagrant for fighting themselves.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I am making the assumption that if B6 came off the bench and "participated in the fight," that A1 and B1's Ts were both flagrant for fighting themselves.

I think 4-18-2 covers this. If it was unsporting enough for a T, and a fight broke out because of it, it deserves to be flagrant.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

A1 will get his two shots and A will get the ball at the spot nearest the foul by B1.

A would get 2 fts for the B member fighting, B would get two for having more players leave the bench. I'm canceling the FTs out and just going with A1's.

A's coach gets one indirect T. B's coach gets 2.

My question, were the bench players the only ones fighting?

I THINK, that the number of players leaving the bench decides if FTs are shot even if one of the players leaving the bench also participated in the fight. There is a case play in Rule 10 where A6,A7 and B6 and B7 leave the bench. B7 is only one who participates in the fight. play says because the number of players leaving bench is equal no FTs. Coach A gets indirect for his players leaving bench and Coach B gets two indirects, one for players leaving the bench and one for the player leaving and fighting. So it looks like there will be no FTs if the number leaving bench is same. coach just gets more indirects. This follows the wording at the end of rule 10. "if the number leaving the bench is equal/unequal…"

In shooters play from the original post---A will shoot the 2 FTS for the intentional foul. B will then get 2 FTS for team A having more players leave bench. Team B will take the ball out at division line opposite table. Coach of team A will get one indirect for his kids leaving bench. Coach of B gets two indirects. One for player leaving bench and not fighting and one on other for fighting. Again I THINK this is right…. it is confusing,,,

[Shooter14]

Originally Posted by BigCat

it is confusing,,,

Yes it is, we talked about it for about 30 minutes and couldn't figure out exactly what the right thing to do would be. What makes it confusing is one team violates worse by having more off the bench, but the other violates worse by having a player participate in a fight.