An ugly mess

[ChuckElias]

Indy, I think we came to pretty much the same conclusion two years ago! LOL

The part about "or when a fight may break out" is a fairly recent rule change and probably didn't apply when the sitch was first posted.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Indy_Ref

Here is what I would do, right or wrong:

1. Substitute for A2 gets 2 shots for the intentional foul by B2 (since A2 was ejected.)
2. Any A player shots 2 for the T on B2.
3. Any B player shots 2 for the flagrant T on A2.
4. Any B player shoots 2 for the flagrant T on A6 (who is ejected per 10-5 "Leave the confines of the bench during a fight OR when a fight MAY break out."
5. Indirect T on coach A for A6's actions & he loses his box.
6. Team B gets ball @ haflcourt.

Originally Posted by ChuckElias

Indy, I think we came to pretty much the same conclusion two years ago! LOL

The part about "or when a fight may break out" is a fairly recent rule change and probably didn't apply when the sitch was first posted.

Exactly right, Chuck.

Indy,
I have no idea why you found this old thread at this particular time, but it is a good example of how and why the NFHS rules change.
The original post is from the end of March 2004. Since the new rule changes aren't made until the April Rules Committee meeting, the 2003-04 NFHS Rules Book was the most current at the time.
In that book 10-4-5 (which is the rule you meant to cite) said, "...Leave the confines of the bench during a fight."
Now it is entirely possible that someone on the committee saw this discussion or had someone pass it to him/her because less than a month later this rule was amended. The phrase "or when a fight may break out" was added as a change for the 2004-05 Rules Book and that is still the current language.

Obviously, if this situation were to occur today, it would be clear that the bench offender needs to be DQ'd. However, back then it was not. The referee had to make a judgment call using the definitions of a flagrant foul and an unsporting foul.
So I'd like to think that we forum members are responsible for helping clean up a gap in the rules, but I can't say for sure.

[REFVA]

Bob, what's your take on A6 coming of the bench? Can a flagrant T be called on this play? I thought I read something a few years ago that stated that it didn't necessarily have to be a "fight" per se, but a confrontation. Thoughts?

NFHS POE I think two years ago, any player coming off the bench onto the court in any altercation is automatic ejection. Unless motioned on the court by an official, which this is not the case.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by REFVA

NFHS POE I think two years ago, any player coming off the bench onto the court in any altercation is automatic ejection. Unless motioned on the court by an official, which this is not the case.

Fwiw, that wasn't a POE. POE's are issued by the FED to tell us how to call existing rules. As Nevada said, that was a new rule in 2004-05.

The original question of mine that you responded to above was naturally not relevant after the rule change. I asked that question before the rule change.

[ChuckElias]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

As Nevada said, that was a new rule

Hey, I said it first.

[REFVA]

The original question of mine that you responded to above was naturally not relevant after the rule change. I asked that question before the rule change.

I stand to be corrected, it is a new rule wasn't sure when it came into play, Although our Interpretor from VHSL, emphasized it at our rules clinic, due to many altercations in VA. The prior year.