A1 scores and is fouled by B1, A1 now is excited so he gestures "raise the roof" and screams "yyyyyeeeeeaaaahhhhh", B1 since it was pretty close to him and pretty loud didn't like it to well and Decks A1 with a right hook... Ruling??? B1 ejected for fighting, is A1 also ejected? (taunting) Free throw?? Alternating possesion?

A1's taunting is regarded as "fighting" if his taunting caused B1 to retaliate by fighting. Double flagrant TECHNICAL( not personal) foul for fighting- both players ejected-A1's replacement shoots 1 FT for B1's foul on the shot- followed by the penalty for the double flagrant foul which is double ejection with no FT's followed by an AP. This is a classic false double foul composed of a personal foul followed by a double flagrant technical foul. Penalize them in the order that they occurred.

Right outa casebook play 4.18.2

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 29th, 2004 at 11:51 AM]

Without being there for the game I don't think you can accurately answer that. I would need to see everything that led up to that. Was it a blow out?, Is A1 not naturally gifted, did something spectacular and went alittle overboard? Was A1 facing B1 when he did this? Where was he looking (crowd, B1)? I THINK I would post both of them.

that was kinda the question i had really??
 

how do you know that just because A1 did this he caused B1 to hit him...maybe B1 just didn't like that the foul was called and he didn't want A1 to be happy about it...is it automatic that just because he Cheered for himself and his team, and got overly excited that this should be considered taunting??? i guess you would have to really look at the sitch and probably have to have beeen their to get the gist of everything going on...hard to call if you weren't their?

Re: that was kinda the question i had really??
 

The casebook play is there to give you direction. Iow, it's a judgement call. If you feel that the screaming was "taunting", then A1 should be charged with a fighting T. If you don't think that it was taunting, then A1 doesn't get charged with anything. From your description, it sure sounds like a classic case of taunting to me. Of course, others may differ.

I think that this play is a classic example of too much rule making by the NFHS/NCAA.

Now keep in mind that what follows is just my humble opinion based upon 34 years of basketball officiating at both levels.

In the beginning (at least my beginning) a player's actions were either sportsmanlike or unsportsmanlike. If a player's actions were unsportsmanlike, his actions were either flagrant or not flagrant. Each act was judged on its own. The way the rules are now written, there is too much other nonsense in them, that require a too much time to sort out the problem.

I would do away with the fighting rule period. I would keep the taunting rule and but I do not know if I would make it an automatic flagrant foul. The OhioHSAA treats the taunting rule per the rule book; it migh be flagrant or it might not be flagrant. It is a judgement call by the official. The MichiganHSAA stipulates that all taunting fouls are flagrant thereby taking away the official's judgment.

Look that the above problem. Lets assume, for the sake of this discussion, that A1's actions were not taunting. I know, from my playing days, that if I or one of my teammates were that excited about scoring that we had to play to the crowd, we would be taken out of the game at the earliest possible moment because it was obvious the we did not have our heads in the game. And when I got home my father would chew me a new tuckus for screwing around on the court. Actually he would not have waited, he would have been waiting for me outside of the lockerroom. Too many parents have forgotten that sports are played because they are fun, and they have also forgotten to teach their children to be humble in victory (I am not saying that you cannot be excited because one has won a game or championship; I mean exhibit good sportsmanship.) and to be gracious in defeat.

Now in the play being discussed, I am of the opinion that it is a play that one has to see in order to make the call. Lets further assume for the sake of this discussion that B1 did not react to A1's actions. The only decision that the official has to make is to determine whether A1's actions were unsportsmanlike or not. My own opinion is that if A1's actions were directed toward the spectators I might ignore, except to discretely tell him to concentrate on the game and not the spectators. If A1's actions were directed toward B1, now that is a horse of a different color. Forget fighting or taunting, A1's actions are unsportsmanlike, and whether his actions are flagrant or not should not be determined upon whether B1 responds to it or not. A1's actions stand alone. If B1 responds, his actions should stand on their own merit as to whether his actions are flagrant or not. Do not be too quick to jump to a fighting foul for both parties.

Look at the whole play.

The MichiganHSAA stipulates that all taunting fouls are flagrant thereby taking away the official's judgment.
[/B][/QUOTE]All taunting fouls are flagrant in Michigan? Without exception? WOW! What rationale are they using for that one, Mark? Jmo, but I think that any official would hesitate before calling anything "taunting" under those restrictions.

All taunting fouls are flagrant in Michigan? Without exception? WOW! What rationale are they using for that one, Mark? Jmo, but I think that any official would hesitate before calling anything "taunting" under those restrictions. [/B][/QUOTE]

JR,
I don't know that rule.
mick

I can't speak for Michigan, but this is true in MA. Any taunting foul is considered flagrant. I have yet to call a taunting foul since we received this directive. All my T's have been for garden-variety unsporting acts, but I don't call it taunting.

JR,
I don't know that rule.
mick [/B][/QUOTE]MTD Sr.?? :confused:

Michigan taunts
 

Michigan 2004-2005 Basketball Rules Meetings

"Taunting includes any actions or comments by coaches, players or spectators which are intended to bait, anger, embarrass, ridicule or demean others, whether or not the deeds or words are vulgar or racist. Included is conduct that berates, needles, intimidates or threatens based on race, gender, ethnic background, and conduct that attacks religious beliefs, size, economic status, speech, family, specials needs or personal matters.

Examples of taunting that would lead to ejection include but are not limited to, 'trash talk'; physical intimidation outside the spirit of the game; reference to sexual orientation; 'in the face' confrontation by one player to another; standing over/straddling a tackled or fallen player.

<u>In all sports</u> officials are to consider taunting a flagrant unsportsmanlike foul that disqualifies the offending bench personnel or contestant from that contest/day of competition (and the next contest/day of competition). <font color = red>A warning may be given but is not required before ejection.</font>"

Re: Michigan taunts
 

From this it looks like MTD is correct.

Re: Re: Michigan taunts
 

Indeed! MTD, Sr. was very, nearly correct.
mick

Re: Re: Re: Michigan taunts
 

Once, I thought I made a mistake, but I was mistaken.

But seriously folks, only once was I faced with a taunting situation in a MichiganHSAA game. A boys' H.S. varsity game between to Michigan Mega Conference schools. V1 decides to bad mouth H1 in front of the scorer's table after I had called a foul on H1. I whached V1 for taunting and before I could turn back around to the Table, Coach H is yelling he's out of the game for taunting. I ignored him and then had to explain why V1 was being ejected to Coach V, who was none to happy with me. But both coaches knew the rule because they had to have attended the mandatory MichiganHSAA State Basketball Rules Meeting.

MTD, Sr.

The act of fighting notwithstanding, my assignors have directed us to use great caution in applying the "taunting" penalty incorrectly but to dish it out when the sitch warrants. Sometimes there is no question about the acts but more often than not there is a fine line that has not been crossed and I can apply circumstantial judgement to interpret what I saw as something less than the severe penalty for taunting.

I do not give a warning for any trash talk or self promoting acts and deliver the whack for USC as it occurs, but I rarely have had to call it taunting.

Likewise, I take great care to not let the game get out of hand in an effort to avoid any boiling point eruptions that may have led to the original sitch described.