I'm sure this have been covered before, but I couldn't find it in the topic list...

OHAA (Ohio HS Athlitic ***.) game. About one minute left in the geme, B down by 3. A1 gets the pass, B1 defends closely and as A1 tries to pass, B1 fouls attempting to make the steal. Immediately after B1 passes the ball, B1 turns and punches A1 in the stomach (grazed).

Is it a technical? When/Why wouldn't it be?

Thank you in advance for your comments

It is a flagrant foul, two shots and ball to the offense, offender is ejected.

It's definitely a flagrant foul.

Whether it's a technical or a personal foul will depend on the officials reading of the book -- some say that all fighting is a T; some say that live-ball contact fouls are Personal fouls.

As a practical matter, it matters little. Either way, it's 2 shots and the ball -- only the spot of the throw-in matters.

The only reason that it might not be is if the ref didn't see it. And if A didn't immediately double up onto the floor, the ref might not. That doesn't justify a no-call, but it might explain it. Who ended up winning the game?

Fighting
 

I would say that, if B1 obviously threw a punch at A1 it is considered fighting. This is flagrant and B1 would be ejected. A would get 2 free throws and the ball.

Obviously, you have to be sure that B was indeed throwing a punch.

I've been taught technicals are for dead ball situations with or without contact or non contact situations during live ball.

Flagrant personal foul. Offending player ejected. Two free throws and the ball at the spot nearest where the foul occurred.

I would say that, if B1 obviously threw a punch at A1 it is considered fighting. This is flagrant and B1 would be ejected. A would get 2 free throws and the ball.

Obviously, you have to be sure that B was indeed throwing a punch. [/B][/QUOTE]Flagrant what? Personal or technical? Same if the attempted punch didn't connect?

More details, since you asked
 

Sorry, I'm new and not used to the A/B's and should have read it better.

A1 gets the pass, B1 defends closely and as A1 tries to pass, B1 fouls attempting to make the steal. Immediately after **A1 passes the ball, A1 turns and punches B1** in the stomach (grazed).

If I understand right, the same result -- person who punched is called for a technical, other team gets two foul shots and the ball.

B1 fouled out on the play (5th). A1 was awarded a one and one. A won the game by two points.

Both referee's responded as if to break up a fight by running at the two players. On the video, the punch was clear and based on where the two referee's were standing (one under the basked with a clear view, one behind and to near mid-court with a clear view, A1 and B1 at the top of the key) and how they moved it is clear they saw the punch. There was no reason to move based on the foul before the punch.

A1 did not land a good punch because he had to strech to land it, but B1 confirmed that it landed and as evidenced on the video.

Re: Fighting
 

If a player throws a punch, even if he/she does not land the punch, or if the player attempts to kick another player, even if the kick doesn't connect -- it is by rule considered fighting (NFHS 4-18) (NCAA 4-23). Player is ejected, two shots + ball just like everyone else says.

It is important that it's clarified as "fighting" because that will determine what the state or conference association does in regards to the penalty for the next game or games, but that's not the officials worry.

As Juulie said though -- it's got to be seen by an official -- don't guess on this one!

If there is a fight in the game, it is the officials fault.

RD

Please :rolleyes:

Here's the book call:

-B1 is charged with a personal foul.
-As the ball is now dead from the personal foul,A1 is charged with a flagrant technical foul for the punch. It doesn't matter whether the punch landed or not;if A1 threw it,he's gone.
- You take the penalties in the order that they occurred. A1's substitute would shoot the 1-1 for B1's personal foul with nobody lined up along the lanes.
-Then player(s) of team B would shoot 2 free throws for A1's flagrant technical foul with nobody lined up.
-Team B now gets the ball at the division line for the throw-in.

That's kind of a blanket statement isnt it?

its only a T is you are wearing beltless pants, if you are wearing belted pants you are not smart enough to make the call.

Re: More details, since you asked
 

In what order were the shots taken? If A shot first, then B shot, and got the ball, that's correct, and it sounds like the refs got it right. From your description, only question would be whether A1 was ejected. Is that what you're asking about?

Excuse this comment. He is upset about another thread.

If he misses and is spinning in circles it is still a foul and when he stops spinning he needs to take his hind quarters to the bench! If we don't see the "fight" we can't call anything. It isn't the officials fault if there is a fight but I will say I have seen a particular official have more "incidents" in his games than most others. He didn't want to call anything. As far as blaming us across the board? I don't think that is accurate.

Tomegun,

Good call, you hae read the other threads. I posted that remark as a joke. I thought someone would get a laugh out of it.

Technical never called.
 

A1 was not called for the technical or any foul. A1 shot one and one.

Oh, sorry guys...I forgot to put quotations around my blanket statement and give credit to the person that made the quote.

"If there is a fight in the game, it is the officials fault"
Dave Libby
NCAA Final Four Official
Guest Speaker at numerous basketball camps around the country
30 years of officiating experience

A1 was not called for the technical or any foul. A1 shot one and one. [/B][/QUOTE]Then the officials obviously did not see the punch thrown by A1, or maybe they decided that it wasn't a punch. They penalized B1's foul only. That's probably the right thing to do. If you aren't 100% completely sure of a call,you don't want to start throwing players out,having them suspended,etc.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 21st, 2003 at 12:30 PM]

Mr. Libby has as much right to make ludicrous overgeneralizations as anybody else. To make that statement as if it were always true is simply incorrect.

Mr. Libby has as much right to make ludicrous overgeneralizations as anybody else. To make that statement as if it were always true is simply incorrect. [/B][/QUOTE]Wrong and stoopid too!

Fair enough...and to be fair to Dave Libby, this statement was made to a room full of officials at a basketball camp to make a point...we do get the point don't we? ;)

RD

Yeah, despite the credible source this blanket statement just isn't true.

To be fair to Mr. Libby, there is a point to making these kind of statements as a speaker. You want to shake your audience up a bit and get them to think of fights in a different way then simply "it's against the rules and players that do it are wrong." He's encouraging refs to take proactive steps to prevent fight situations from developing. Sure it's an over-generalization, but that is the point of the statement in the first place.

Fights can clearly happen for many reasons. And little or nothing that an official does or does not do justifies players fighting. That said, an official that manages games effectively will prevent many situations that could lead to fights. I have no doubt that this is what Mr. Libby meant when he made the statement.

Clarification
 

Flagrant what? Personal or technical? Same if the attempted punch didn't connect? [/B][/QUOTE]


I apologize for not being more clear. Fighting is a flagrant technical (10.9 Penalty). Yes, I say it is the same if the punch does not connect (4.18.1).

Re: Clarification
 

I apologize for not being more clear. Fighting is a flagrant technical (10.9 Penalty). Yes, I say it is the same if the punch does not connect (4.18.1).
[/B][/QUOTE]We've had long discussions on this one before,believe me. :D

See NFHS casebook play 10.4.4SitA:
"Post players A1 and B1 begin punching each other and play is stopped".......Ruling: "A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws will result from <b>the double personal fouls</b>".

There are also references in the book(which I ain't gonna look up) that reference fighting as a flagrant technical foul also.

End result is the same. Both flagrant.

Re: Re: Clarification
 

We've had long discussions on this one before,believe me. :D

See NFHS casebook play 10.4.4SitA:
"Post players A1 and B1 begin punching each other and play is stopped".......Ruling: "A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws will result from <b>the double personal fouls</b>".

There are also references in the book(which I ain't gonna look up) that reference fighting as a flagrant technical foul also.

End result is the same. Both flagrant. [/B][/QUOTE]


You enjoyed setting me up for that one! But really, an item in the rule book that can be argued differently depending on what page you're on......never seen that before.

My original post was going to say something like, Who cares if it is personal or technical - flagrant either way.

I think I'm gonna like this forum.

Re: More details, since you asked
 

Curious Fan-
Never assume that even though the video may show that it appears that the officials had a clear view of what happened.
They may have had their vision focused elsewhere. Just look at instant replay in any sport, You can slow it down see it a hundred times, change the angle and have your judgement tainted.
Never assume you were not the officials on the floor, cant say way what they saw.

AK ref SE

You enjoyed setting me up for that one! But really, an item in the rule book that can be argued differently depending on what page you're on......never seen that before.

My original post was going to say something like, Who cares if it is personal or technical - flagrant either way.

I think I'm gonna like this forum. [/B][/QUOTE]We get quite a few arguments like that one,believe it or not. There are a lot of sharp dudes and dudettes visiting here- as well as some extremely knowledgeable coaches. Yup,you will have fun and you'll learn and keep current here.It's a helluva forum.

Curious
I didn't read this part of your post clearly enough. All I can say is that I would be shocked if any official watched a punch, saw contact, and passed on the call. I can always quibble about what should and should not be called, but I have NEVER seen a ref observe a punch and pass. Just because you think that's what you saw on video doesn't mean that's what happened.

There was a Norway vs. Brazil world cup game where Norway got a penalty kick that tied the game late in the match. Every replay angle showed that nothing had happened - the defender had not committed the foul and the announcers ripped the ref. The next day in the paper, a photographer with a different angle provided a beautiful shot of a complete take down shirt grab that all replay angles missed. You probably have one angle on this play, and it isn't sufficient to say that either ref was looking right at the punch and saw in live action what you see on tape.

I do not have my rule books in front of me but I am going to give the posting a go at it.

Since this game was probably played last night, it was either a boys' or girls' jr. H.S. game, because the freshmen, jr. varsity, and varsity regular seasons have not started yet, or it could have been during a scrimmage game.

Under both NFHS and NCAA rules, the definition of fighting does not state specifically state that a fighting foul is a technical foul and the definition of a flagrant foul includes some of the attributes of a fighting foul that are found in the definition of a fighting foul, but in the technical foul section of Rule 10, it states that a fighting foul is technical foul.

The foul described in the originally posting could be either a fighting foul and therefore a techincal foul or it could be a flagrant personal foul (because there was contact while the ball was live).

How would I have called it under NFHS rules? Since there was contact, I would have charged B1 with a flagrant personal foul. B1 is ejected, A1 shoots two free throws, and Team A gets the ball for a throw-in nearest the spot of B1 foul.

The fighting foul is cumbersome to apply, and if one just takes the time to apply the rules as they are written, the net effect is the same.

Mark
I take it from your post that Ohio has no special provisions for handling a fight after the fact, i.e., automatic suspension for a certain number of games? I think that state provisions for fighting are often more strict than for other types of ejections, and that's why many have advocated that a fight must called as such if that's what you see. May not matter in Ohio, but in other states it could make a big difference.

Re: More details, since you asked
 

No, it is not clear they saw the punch from what you wrote. The ref under the hoop would not have been watching this play, if he's keeping an eye on his primary area like he's supposed to. The ref on the ball could easily have missed it based on where the players were. They could have been reacting to the action *after* the punch, rather than reacting to the punch.
That a punch is clear when watching the video (looking for it) does not mean it was clear in live action.

Live ball??
 

Why do you say that there was contact while the ball was live? In the situation B1 fouls A1 while A1 is attempting a pass, it is after the foul on the pass that the punch occurs. The ball becomes dead when a foul occurs (unless it is during a try/tap/free throw is in flight.

Agree completely. If you do call the swing as a punch, then you have a false double foul composed of a personal foul on B1 followed by a flagrant technical foul on A1. [/B][/QUOTE]


False Multiple Foul...that's what you meant, right? Both fouls are on B1.

False Multiple Foul...that's what you meant, right? Both fouls are on B1. [/B][/QUOTE]You know what? I just spent all freaking day reading this play wrong, and giving dumb answers. I read it as B1 fouling A1, and A1 retaliating by taking a swing at B1.

No excuses. I'm stoopid!

Anyhoo......2 scenarios:

1)Officials call a common personal foul on B1. They decide that the swing wasn't a punch,so they ignore it. One and one for A1, with the players on the lanes.
2)Call the common personal foul on B1, followed by a flagrant technical foul on B1 for the punch. A1 gets the one/one with players not lined up; then any A player(s) shoot the 2 FT's for the T with nobody on the lanes; A then gets the ball at the division line for a throw-in.

Sounds like the officials went with Door #1.

I made a mistake in reading the original posting. I missed the first foul by B1. This makes the situation a false multiple foul. The first foul by B1 is a live ball contact foul and therefore is a personal foul and it is a common foul. The second foul by B1 is a dead ball contact foul and therefor is a technical foul which at the very least is a flagrant foul and possibly a fighting foul.

I would still stand by my original decision to treat B1's second foul as a flagrant foul (technical one because it occured while the ball was dead). This means that anybody (NHFS: two different players, one for each free throw; NCAA: the same player must shoot both free throws) from Team A can shoot the two free throws of the technical. Under NFHS rules the fouls are penalized in the order that they occured meaning the Team A will get the ball for a throw-in at the division line opposite the Scorer's Table; under NCAA rules the technical foul free throws are shot before the penalty for the common foul are imposed and the ball is put into play is if the common foul was the only foul that occured.

The OhioHSAA does not have in extra penalties for fighting per se. The first time a player is ejected from a basketball game during the season, the player is suspended for the rest of the day and from all basketball games that the school plays until the school has played two games at the level of the game from which the player was ejected. This rule also applies to coaches. An example would be if the varsity coach, who is an assitant coach during a freshmen game, is ejected from the freshmen game. If the school plays four varsity games before the freshmen team plays two games, the varsity coach cannot return to coaching until after the second freshmen game is played. (This would type of penalty would apply to a player because in Ohio a player is allowed to play 80 quarters during the regular season; freshmen can spread their 80 quarters over freshmen, jr. varsity, and varsity games, and sophomores, junior, and seniors can spread their 80 quarters over jr. varsity and varsity games.) The second time a player or coach is ejected from a game during the season, the player or coach is suspended for the rest of the season including post-season play, and the coach must go to Columbus with his principal to have a personal meeting with Clair Muscaro, the OhioHSAA Commissioner. And I would think that is not a 2-1/2 to 3 hour drive that a coach would want to have to take with his principal.

The original poster indicated that the punch was by B1, Then, later in the thread, he changed it to A1.

Yup,and I answered both of the scenarios at different times.

Thank goodness, maybe my mind isn't going after all.

Well, your mind isn't going and your ticker is good. All you need now is two young legs! ;)

I know, I've tried. They keep saying "NO" though! :D

Re: More details, since you asked
 

B1 is fouled out. A1 is ejected for fighting (Flagrant foul), A team coach has to have a sub shoot the one and one first. Then B team designates a shooter for the 2 shots for the flagrant foul. Ball is put back in play to the B team @ a spot throw in nearest to where the foul occured.