Fight

[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.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

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

I meant for the kid being ejected the penalty is the same for that kid, but you're right, and that's a good point, it penalizes his team more, which is additional incentive to not actually partake.

[SNIPERBBB]

Plus your coach, school, league, state, parents may invoke additional penalties

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Altor

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.

I'm not sure. If the actions cause an immediate retaliation, sure. If 6 idiots on the bench can't help themselves, that's on the coaching.

It also speaks to the overall mood of the game. This likely didn't just come out of nowhere.