NFHS altercation penalties question

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The NFHS rules seem unclear for the penalties when an altercation occurs.
Does anyone have a definitive answer as to which penalties can offset?

For example, A1 has the ball and is dribbling in the lane where he is fouled by B1. After the whistle, A1 and B1 face off nose to nose and exchange words, but don’t have any physical contact. B2 comes running from near the division line and forcefully shoves A1 with both forearms. A4 takes both hands and shoves B2 away from his teammate. A7 comes off his team bench and shoves B4. At this point the coaches come onto the court and remove their respective players.

At the time of the play Team A had committed six fouls in the half and Team B had committed eight.
Please list the fouls which you would assess and which FTs would be attempted and which would offset.

The ten players and the bench personnel are treated differently under the fighting rules. You don't offset a foul by a player with one by a sub/coach/trainer/etc.

1) Foul by B1 which will result in FTs
2) Double technical foul A1/B1 (could argue flagrant since it led to everything else)
3) Double flagrant technical foul A4/B2
4) Flagrant technical foul A7 (and one indirect on the A coach)

A1 (or his sub) shoots the FTs for (1) and any B player shoots the FTs for (4). B gets the ball at the division line. A coach is seatbelted. After all is said and done B has 11 fouls and A has 9.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Also, I'm assuming by "coaches" you mean only the head coaches came out.

NFHS Rules Changes - 2019-20
10-5-5 Note: The head coach and any number of assistant coaches may enter the court in the situation where a fight may break out - or has broken out - to prevent the situation from escalating.
Rationale: Based on some fight situations that I have seen and heard about over the last couple years at the high school level, I believe that this change, which was instituted at the NCAA level, is a change that is good for the game of basketball and in regard to player safety. It is difficult in our society for officials to be able to help to separate players involved in a fight since our society has become very litigious. Changing the rule to allow the head coach and assistant coaches to assist in these types of situations will help the officials to regain control of the entire situation more quickly and especially in regard to player safety.

[SC Official]

DOH!

Thanks Billy. I edited.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by SC Official

The ten players and the bench personnel are treated differently under the fighting rules. You don't offset a foul by a player with one by a sub/coach/trainer/etc.

Unless coach A comes running out onto the court yelling at B2 and they end up throwing punches at each other. But if that happens, you’ve got deeper issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by SC Official

The ten players and the bench personnel are treated differently under the fighting rules. You don't offset a foul by a player with one by a sub/coach/trainer/etc.

This part sounds nice and neat, but I’ve never seen such stated in anything from the NFHS. One could probably draw this conclusion from the structure of the penalty section, but it would great to see something formal.

Originally Posted by SC Official

1) Foul by B1 which will result in FTs
2) Double technical foul A1/B1 (could argue flagrant since it led to everything else)
3) Double flagrant technical foul A4/B2
4) Flagrant technical foul A7 (and one indirect on the A coach)

A1 (or his sub) shoots the FTs for (1) and any B player shoots the FTs for (4). B gets the ball at the division line. A coach is seatbelted. After all is said and done B has 11 fouls and A has 9.

I don’t agree with this. Doesn’t meet the definition.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This part sounds nice and neat, but I’ve never seen such stated in anything from the NFHS. One could probably draw this conclusion from the structure of the penalty section, but it would great to see something formal.



I don’t agree with this. Doesn’t meet the definition.

Agree with your point on item 3. Since the fouls were not against each other, it can't be a double. It could be considered simultaneous, however. That would have the same net effect (offset/POI).

For me, it would depend on the time between the two events. If close (within a second or so) I'm calling them simultaneous. If not that close, I'm calling them two independent infractions and FTs would be shot for each, in the order of occurrence.


As for something from the NFHS regarding what offsets...see

Rule 10 Penalty Summary No. 8. Fighting:

Someone has cited this section here: https://bsbproduction.s3.amazonaws.c...fight-rule.pdf

They clearly separate the penalties for players involved and non-players involved.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree with your point on item 3. Since the fouls were not against each other, it can't be a double. It could be considered simultaneous, however. That would have the same net effect (offset/POI).

For me, it would depend on the time between the two events. If close (within a second or so) I'm calling them simultaneous. If not that close, I'm calling them two independent infractions and FTs would be shot for each, in the order of occurrence.


As for something from the NFHS regarding what offsets...see

Rule 10 Penalty Summary No. 8. Fighting:

Someone has cited this section here: https://bsbproduction.s3.amazonaws.c...fight-rule.pdf

They clearly separate the penalties for players involved and non-players involved.

What type of "infraction" are you calling in this situation? Non-flagrant or flagrant? The OP says we have an "altercation" which subsequently results in the coach coming on the floor to control his players. If the officials define this to be a "fighting" situation, the rule you cite clearly says no free throws are awarded. If the fouls are not flagrant, I agree with your statement.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by billyu2

What type of "infraction" are you calling in this situation? Non-flagrant or flagrant? The OP says we have an "altercation" which subsequently results in the coach coming on the floor to control his players. If the officials define this to be a "fighting" situation, the rule you cite clearly says no free throws are awarded. If the fouls are not flagrant, I agree with your statement.

The action by the players on the court may or may not be a fight....that is judgement. As described, I'm probably not calling it a fight.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The action by the players on the court may or may not be a fight....that is judgement. As described, I'm probably not calling it a fight.

NFHS 4-18: Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live.
Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1 An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms,
legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.
ART. 2 An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act
that causes a person to retaliate by fighting.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by billyu2

What type of "infraction" are you calling in this situation? Non-flagrant or flagrant? The OP says we have an "altercation" which subsequently results in the coach coming on the floor to control his players. If the officials define this to be a "fighting" situation, the rule you cite clearly says no free throws are awarded. If the fouls are not flagrant, I agree with your statement.

Coaches are not relevant any longer. (Assuming they’re not swinging etc)However, in past days they would be bench personnel. Count number from each side. If equal- NO FTs. If some of those fight the penalty was more indirects to coach and he is ejected.

The number leaving the bench determines if FTs are shot for those infractions. You have to figure out players on court stuff based on what they do. 2 seaoarate procedures. We don’t mix and match and offset all....
HOWEVER, if you did there’d only be a handful on planet who’d know if it was done correctly..

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Coaches are not relevant any longer. (Assuming they’re not swinging etc)However, in past days they would be bench personnel. Count number from each side. If equal- NO FTs. If some of those fight the penalty was more indirects to coach and he is ejected.

The number leaving the bench determines if FTs are shot for those infractions. You have to figure out players on court stuff based on what they do. 2 seaoarate procedures. We don’t mix and match and offset all....
HOWEVER, if you did there’d only be a handful on planet who’d know if it was done correctly..

You missed my point. If the "altercation" on the floor was such that one or both coaches had to come out on the floor to help get things under control (which is allowed) then a good case could be made this was indeed a fight.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by billyu2

You missed my point. If the "altercation" on the floor was such that one or both coaches had to come out on the floor to help get things under control (which is allowed) then a good case could be made this was indeed a fight.

I wouldn’t declare that whatever happened on floor was a fight just because coaches came out. Coaches can come out to prevent one. A7 leaving bench, moment he does he’s ejected because one could have broken out. When he shoves somebody, being a bench player, I think he is participating in or starting fight.