NFHS altercation penalties question

[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.