Fighting

[FlasherZ]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I am treating all the fighting as happening at about the same time.

A1, A6 (from the bench and participating) and A7 (from the bench and not participating), = 3 Ts against A. Coach A gets two indirects. B1, B2, B3 = 3 Ts against B.

All the T's offset.

Coach A needs to sit; coach B does not.

Add 3 to each Team's foul total (plus one more for B1's common foul).

Resume with whatever would have happened after the common foul on B1.

Original post says that B1 was disqualified but I didn't see anything in the narrative that stated B1 did anything more than commit a common foul. I guess we can assume he retaliated after someone took a swing at him.

It would seem the rulebook wants us to consider players that were on the court separately from those who came off the bench, no? The rule book separates "Players on the court" from "Bench personnel leaving the team bench during a fight or when a fight may break out" and determines the imbalance in the players from each of those categories separately? If we take that approach, I get the following:

First, the players on the court. A1 vs. B1, B2, B3. So wouldn't we assess 1 T to A and 3 T's to B? The difference then means 4 FT's for A for the 3-1 disparity in on-court players participating?

Then we'd consider players that came off the bench. A6 & A7. A6 participates, so T + indirect to coach for him; A7 doesn't participate, so T + indirect to coach as well (but max of 1 indirect for all players who came off but didn't participate here). 2 T's against A, so 4 FT's for B.

Based on what I read, I'd be shooting 4 FT's for A, and 4 FT's for B. The rest is the same as Bob in terms of coaches sitting and foul counts.

[thumpferee]

Sounds like the foul on B1 was ruled flagrant. In that case, technicals offset.
Resume the game POI with the foul on A1.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by thumpferee

Sounds like the foul on B1 was ruled flagrant. In that case, technicals offset.
Resume the game POI with the foul on A1.

If so, it would be a flagrant personal foul, not a technical, so no offsetting is possible.

[Nevadaref]

I have stated for several years that the NFHS needs to clarify how to administer the fighting penalties. There needs to be about three case plays which detail the permutations. In my opinion, they are unclear and quality officials can legitimately come up with different ways to administer the same situation. That isn’t a positive.

Bob has nicely suggested using the simultaneous foul rule to allow for all of the Ts to offset. It certainly simplifies the mess and avoids attempting numerous FTs, but is it actually correct? We certainly know there is a sequence to these fouls. Even if the first two or three happen in a short time span, the foul by B3 definitely occurs later and the entering of the court happens after the initial swing and retaliation by two Team B players.

Another issue in this scenario is that none of the technicals can form a double technical foul because of the definition, which requires two opponents to foul each other. Only A1 and B1 commit acts against each other, but one of them is during a live ball, so that nixes those from the double technical category.

My current understanding is that fighting technicals by players in the game cannot offset any by team members who enter the court. The NFHS puts them into two different buckets. It would be great to have a case play that clarifies this though. Or even states the opposite!

So if I were to administer the play as described above:
1. Personal foul by B1
2. Flagrant technical foul by A1.
3. Either an intentional or flagrant technical foul by B2. (Need to see the severity of this contact to decide.)
4. Either an intentional or flagrant technical by B3. (Need to see the severity.)
5. Flagrant technical fouls by A6 & A7 per rule. A7 is deemed to have participated.

Consequences:
1. Three team fouls on each team.
2. Two indirect technicals charged to Team A’s Head Coach (= Loss of coaching box.)
3. A1, A6, and A7 are disqualified. B2 and B3 are DQ’d if their fouls were ajudged to be flagrant, but not if only intentional dead ball contact.
4. Administer all of these penalties in the order of occurrence: any FTs due to B1’s personal foul will be attempted by a sub for DQ’d A1; Team B then attempts 2 FTs for A1’s T, followed by Team A attempting four FTs for the two techs by B2 & B3, and finally Team B shoots four FTs (2 for A6 entering and participating, plus 2 for A7 just entering). Now award a division line throw-in to Team B.

It is not as simple as Bob’s suggestion and that is the problem with the lack of clear information from the NFHS on fights/altercations.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It is not as simple as Bob’s suggestion and that is the problem with the lack of clear information from the NFHS on fights/altercations.

I should point out that we have been instructed here to treat them all as simultaneous. I do recognize that there is some FED case or interp that treats it more along the lines of what Nevada suggests.

Only if it is a completely separate event (all the above happens, we get the teams back to the benches, we meet to discuss and then some scuffle breaks out again) do we treat it as separate events.

NCAAW treats all dead ball fouls (up until the first FT or the throw-in begins) as offsetting.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The NFHS puts them into two different buckets.

A fight is a fight. We all know what a fight looks like.

We've all seen such fights back in elementary school at noon recess.

Unless two fights happen with an (undefined) interval of time in between, I like the idea of "one fight bucket".

However, the NFHS probably needs the second bucket for players who come off the bench but don't fight.

The NFHS really wants to to limit the number of team members on the court during a fight.

The NFHS's answer is to treat these "observers" as "fighters", even if they don't "fight"

Thus we get these complex fight rules.

[JRutledge]

I would not treat them all the same when different players are involved. If A1 throws a punch at B1 and B2 comes and does something to A1, I would not consider that the same act.

Obviously, the players coming off the bench are treated differently if they participate in the fight or they are "peacemakers" on some level. I do not need to restate that fact. Also, I might not even get B2 for fighting if they are on the court if all that happened was a chest bump. Honestly, this is a HTBT situation and knowing the bigger picture of what was done to ultimately know, but that is why you have to take your time and do what you see as a crew. Been in these situations and not fun and a lot of confusion. Had something like this happen this summer at a camp (they were using HS rules) for a college conference and all the debate over what happened was more of a headache than applying the rules.

Peace

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Bob has nicely suggested using the simultaneous foul rule to allow for all of the Ts to offset. It certainly simplifies the mess and avoids attempting numerous FTs, but is it actually correct? We certainly know there is a sequence to these fouls. Even if the first two or three happen in a short time span, the foul by B3 definitely occurs later and the entering of the court happens after the initial swing and retaliation by two Team B players.

Another issue in this scenario is that none of the technicals can form a double technical foul because of the definition, which requires two opponents to foul each other. Only A1 and B1 commit acts against each other, but one of them is during a live ball, so that nixes those from the double technical category.

My current understanding is that fighting technicals by players in the game cannot offset any by team members who enter the court. The NFHS puts them into two different buckets. It would be great to have a case play that clarifies this though. Or even states the opposite!

So if I were to administer the play as described above:
1. Personal foul by B1
2. Flagrant technical foul by A1.
3. Either an intentional or flagrant technical foul by B2. (Need to see the severity of this contact to decide.)
4. Either an intentional or flagrant technical by B3. (Need to see the severity.)
5. Flagrant technical fouls by A6 & A7 per rule. A7 is deemed to have participated.

Consequences:
1. Three team fouls on each team.
2. Two indirect technicals charged to Team A’s Head Coach (= Loss of coaching box.)
3. A1, A6, and A7 are disqualified. B2 and B3 are DQ’d if their fouls were ajudged to be flagrant, but not if only intentional dead ball contact.
4. Administer all of these penalties in the order of occurrence: any FTs due to B1’s personal foul will be attempted by a sub for DQ’d A1; Team B then attempts 2 FTs for A1’s T, followed by Team A attempting four FTs for the two techs by B2 & B3, and finally Team B shoots four FTs (2 for A6 entering and participating, plus 2 for A7 just entering). Now award a division line throw-in to Team B.

It is not as simple as Bob’s suggestion and that is the problem with the lack of clear information from the NFHS on fights/altercations.

I agree to most of what you are saying.
In the video, it appears the officials ruled that B1, B2 and B3 were assessed Flagrant T's. B1 has a personal and Flagrant T. So B1 and A1 Flagrant T's offset. Thus eliminating Team B attempting 2 FTs for A1’s T.
This happened in with 1:12 remaining in OT. Both teams already had 5 Team fouls. So Team fouls are a moot point.
I know Bob wanted all T's to offset. But I believe each team should shoot 4 FT's for the T's.
Player replacing A1 shoots 2 for personal foul
Team A shoots 4 FT's for players fighting
Team B shoots 2 FT's substitutes entering & 2 FT's for substitute fighting.
Team B gets the ball at division line
Coach A sits
It appears the officials took bob's line of thinking. Offset all T's. They lined up and Team A's substitute shot the 2 personal FT's. They forgot to sit Coach A