Fight

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

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.

I would add that for 17 year old kids, their first instinct is not to break up the fight. Not for the majority of them anyway. That's why the NFHS wants them to just stay on the bench.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by frezer11

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.

No, there has not, and there never will be. NCAA enforces this the same way. You come off, you're done for the night. Period. Good coaches teach this discipline so that if a fight ever does happen, the players instinctively stay where they are. And this is also where good assistant coaches can be worth their weight in gold keeping players on the bench.

Originally Posted by Adam

I would add that for 17 year old kids, their first instinct is not to break up the fight. Not for the majority of them anyway. That's why the NFHS wants them to just stay on the bench.

You don't need me to tell you this, but NCAA does this the same way. With good reason. Limit the chaos via the threat of severe penalty.

I've had two legitimate fights and I find that the hardest thing to do is say with certainty who came off the bench. NCAA gets monitor review in some cases. NFHS and smaller college games have no such luxury. When a fight breaks out your attention is drawn to the fight, not the bench. It's really hard to get it right.

[SNIPERBBB]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

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

I think all states do.

I know this parent would.

[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.

[Altor]

The purpose of the rule is to punish unsporting behavior that causes a fight. If they don't chest up to each other six other players stay on their own benches. They need to just walk away from each other and play ball if they can't handle the consequences.