Elbow during live ball - Page 3

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #31 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 04:09pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
My question is why couldn't an intimidating act be an unsporting technical foul? What do you call on the player that pokes another in the chest with his finger in a menancing manner during a live ball?

Finally, are you telling me that the rules do not allow an official the flexibility to judge acts to be unsporting? As in
10.3.7 that states "this includes, but not limited to".

Mulk

Ronny:

An intimidating act is an unsporting technical foul. It is called taunting and we have a specific foul for it. But illegal contact while the ball is live is a personal foul, unless the contact is deemed fighting. Unless you have a fight, you have a personal foul.

MTD, Sr.

Buckley11 · #32 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 05:09pm

ENOUGH ALREADY....I GOT MY ANSWER TWO DAYS AGO AND I AM TIRED OF GETTING E-MAILS CONCERNING REPLIES.

ENJOY YOUR POST SEASON GAMES...I AM

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #33 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 07:04pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Buckley11
ENOUGH ALREADY....I GOT MY ANSWER TWO DAYS AGO AND I AM TIRED OF GETTING E-MAILS CONCERNING REPLIES.

ENJOY YOUR POST SEASON GAMES...I AM

Buckley11:

You may be tired of getting emails, but I am not sure what answer you got, but there are people that still think that this play is worth discussing.

MTD, Sr.

ronny mulkey · #34 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 09:12pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
My question is why couldn't an intimidating act be an unsporting technical foul? What do you call on the player that pokes another in the chest with his finger in a menancing manner during a live ball?

Finally, are you telling me that the rules do not allow an official the flexibility to judge acts to be unsporting? As in
10.3.7 that states "this includes, but not limited to".

Mulk

1) An "intimidating act" could be an unsporting T.

2) The "poke" isn't "contact that prevents normal offensive or defensive manuevers" so the poke itself isn't a foul. So, here, we penalize the unsporting aspect -- T.

3) Flexibility is allowed.

In the original play, if the swing was with intent to hit / harm the other player, then it's probably a flagrant T or flagrant P (depending on whether contact was made).

If it's just a "get off of me" swing, then it's probably a violation, or PC foul (depending on whether contact was made).

(and the option for Intentional P is there for something in between.)

The rule used to be, of course, that all swings were a T. BUt the committee recognized that not all swings rise to the level of an unsporting foul, but still need to be penalized -- thus the rule change.

Bob:

If A1 pokes B1 in the chest, that is most certainly an intentional personal foul, at the very least, by A1; remember illegal contact while the ball is live is a personal foul. It is not incidental contact. If B1 were to retaliate, then A1's actions would be considered fighting; A1 and B1 are each charged with a flagrant technical foul (this is a double technical foul) and both A1 and B1 are disqualified for fighting.

MTD, Sr.

MTD,

So, if B1 does not respond to A1's poke in the chest, then you are going to allow A1 to poke B1 4 more times before you DQ A1? How many times are you going to let B1 poke A1 in the chest? Until A1 responds so that you can call fighting? That could lead to a lot of chest pokings and the reason is because you are trying to fit this act into the "you can't rule technical if there is contact during a live ball" statement,instead of treating it as an unsporting technical. Penalize the act and forget the contact. Stop borderline acts early. Don't let yourself get boxed in because you were not willing to exercise your unsporting T option.

Again, IMHO.

Mulk

bob jenkins · #35 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 09:14pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Buckley11
ENOUGH ALREADY....I GOT MY ANSWER TWO DAYS AGO AND I AM TIRED OF GETTING E-MAILS CONCERNING REPLIES.

ENJOY YOUR POST SEASON GAMES...I AM

THEN CHANGE YOUR PROFILE TO NOT SEND YOU AN EMAIL WHEN SOMEONE RESPONDS TO THE THREAD.

Oh, and stop using all caps, please.

ronny mulkey · #36 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 09:22pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by Buckley11
ENOUGH ALREADY....I GOT MY ANSWER TWO DAYS AGO AND I AM TIRED OF GETTING E-MAILS CONCERNING REPLIES.

ENJOY YOUR POST SEASON GAMES...I AM

Buckley11:

You may be tired of getting emails, but I am not sure what answer you got, but there are people that still think that this play is worth discussing.

MTD, Sr.

MTD,

So that we don't bore 11, we can go offline if you would like.

Buckley 11, please accept my apology or just delete the emails. I realize all folks don't have the same stamina or willingness to learn something new.

Mulk

Jurassic Referee · #37 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 09:26pm

Aw, keep posting, Mulk. I'm finding this discussion interesting.

ronny mulkey · #38 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 09:30pm

JR,

You are not just funning me, are you? Or, are you funning Buckley?

Mulk

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #39 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 09:34pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ronny mulkey

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
My question is why couldn't an intimidating act be an unsporting technical foul? What do you call on the player that pokes another in the chest with his finger in a menancing manner during a live ball?

Finally, are you telling me that the rules do not allow an official the flexibility to judge acts to be unsporting? As in
10.3.7 that states "this includes, but not limited to".

Mulk

1) An "intimidating act" could be an unsporting T.

2) The "poke" isn't "contact that prevents normal offensive or defensive manuevers" so the poke itself isn't a foul. So, here, we penalize the unsporting aspect -- T.

3) Flexibility is allowed.

In the original play, if the swing was with intent to hit / harm the other player, then it's probably a flagrant T or flagrant P (depending on whether contact was made).

If it's just a "get off of me" swing, then it's probably a violation, or PC foul (depending on whether contact was made).

(and the option for Intentional P is there for something in between.)

The rule used to be, of course, that all swings were a T. BUt the committee recognized that not all swings rise to the level of an unsporting foul, but still need to be penalized -- thus the rule change.

Bob:

If A1 pokes B1 in the chest, that is most certainly an intentional personal foul, at the very least, by A1; remember illegal contact while the ball is live is a personal foul. It is not incidental contact. If B1 were to retaliate, then A1's actions would be considered fighting; A1 and B1 are each charged with a flagrant technical foul (this is a double technical foul) and both A1 and B1 are disqualified for fighting.

MTD, Sr.

MTD,

So, if B1 does not respond to A1's poke in the chest, then you are going to allow A1 to poke B1 4 more times before you DQ A1? How many times are you going to let B1 poke A1 in the chest? Until A1 responds so that you can call fighting? That could lead to a lot of chest pokings and the reason is because you are trying to fit this act into the "you can't rule technical if there is contact during a live ball" statement,instead of treating it as an unsporting technical. Penalize the act and forget the contact. Stop borderline acts early. Don't let yourself get boxed in because you were not willing to exercise your unsporting T option.

Again, IMHO.

Mulk

Ronny:

I am probably going to regret asking this question, but here goes. Do you think that I am not going to put air my whistle the first time A1 intentionally pokes B1 in the chest? Of course I am. Why would I let A1 continually intentionally poke B1 in the chest? You are over analyzing this play.

The best advice I can give you is that if you cannot explain your call, then don't make it.

You are not listening to what I am saying because you want to make an interpretation that cannot be defended by rule, which would make it almost impossible to explain. In otherwords: Know your definitions and apply them accordingly.

Also, please go back to my post in this thread on Feb. 25, 2005, at 10:22pm, and answer my question concerning flagrant fouls.

MTD, Sr.

Jurassic Referee · #40 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 09:47pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
JR,

You are not just funning me, are you? Or, are you funning Buckley?

Mulk

No, I'm sureashell not funning you, Ronny.

There's an anomaly in the rules already regarding whether "fighting" during a live ball is a personal or technical foul. Rule 10-3-9 says that fighting is a technical foul. Also, under R4-18-1, the rules say that an "attempt" to strike someone can be called fighting. Iow, you can have a player charged with "fighting" during a live ball even though that player didn't make physical contact of any kind. Then we got case book play 10.4.4SitA which says that this particular fight led to double personal fouls. We've had this argument before, and I think that the conclusion we came to was that "fighting" during a live ball could be called either a personal or technical foul. When you extrapolate that to your argument, I think that imo you come up with what Bob J. said in his post--that there's flexibility in the rules to call it either way.

MTD, thoughts?

ronny mulkey · #41 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 09:52pm

MTD,

I have no doubt that you are not going to let anyone poke someone in the chest. You and me are going to forget the "you can't call a tech "if contact occurs during a live ball" and do the right thing. My point exactly.

I don't think either you or me has a problem with sharing our opinions (no matter how unpopular) with this group, but please restate your question so that someone as simple as me can understand it.

Mulk

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #42 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 10:08pm

Quote:

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
MTD,

I have no doubt that you are not going to let anyone poke someone in the chest. You and me are going to forget the "you can't call a tech "if contact occurs during a live ball" and do the right thing. My point exactly.

I don't think either you or me has a problem with sharing our opinions (no matter how unpopular) with this group, but please restate your question so that someone as simple as me can understand it.

Mulk

Ronny:

What do you mean that I am going to forget the "you can't call a tech if contact occurs during the a live ball?" Repeat after me: Illegal contact while the ball is live is a personal foul; it is not a technical foul.

MTD, Sr.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. · #43 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 10:16pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
JR,

You are not just funning me, are you? Or, are you funning Buckley?

Mulk

No, I'm sureashell not funning you, Ronny.

There's an anomaly in the rules already regarding whether "fighting" during a live ball is a personal or technical foul. Rule 10-3-9 says that fighting is a technical foul. Also, under R4-18-1, the rules say that an "attempt" to strike someone can be called fighting. Iow, you can have a player charged with "fighting" during a live ball even though that player didn't make physical contact of any kind. Then we got case book play 10.4.4SitA which says that this particular fight led to double personal fouls. We've had this argument before, and I think that the conclusion we came to was that "fighting" during a live ball could be called either a personal or technical foul. When you extrapolate that to your argument, I think that imo you come up with what Bob J. said in his post--that there's flexibility in the rules to call it either way.

MTD, thoughts?

JR:

I agree with you that both the NFHS and NCAA rules regarding fighting is ambiguous at best. I would prefer that the fouls be charged per the definition of live ball and dead ball. If flagrant fouls are committed then charge them and disqualify the guilty parties. I think the problem of the fighting definition is that it is tied to the conduct of bench personnel leaving the confines of the bench to join action on the court. I do not know what the answer is right now, and I don't know if I want to think about it right now because in exactly six months Mark,Jr., our oldest will be able to get his learner's permit and I don't know if I am ready for that yet.

MTD, Sr.

ronny mulkey · #44 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 10:18pm

MTD,

Repeat after me and answer yes or no appropriately:

Then, you are going to let A1 poke B1 during a live ball in the chest 5 times before you DQ him? Then, you are going to let B1 poke A1 in the chest 5 times before you DQ him? Then you are going to let A2 poke B2 5 times in the chest? A6 poke B6........

Mulk

Jurassic Referee · #45 (**permalink**) Sat Feb 26, 2005, 10:22pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

Originally posted by ronny mulkey
MTD,

I have no doubt that you are not going to let anyone poke someone in the chest. You and me are going to forget the "you can't call a tech "if contact occurs during a live ball" and do the right thing. My point exactly.

I don't think either you or me has a problem with sharing our opinions (no matter how unpopular) with this group, but please restate your question so that someone as simple as me can understand it.

Mulk

Ronny:

What do you mean that I am going to forget the "you can't call a tech if contact occurs during the a live ball?" Repeat after me: Illegal contact while the ball is live is a personal foul; it is not a technical foul.

Mark, can you explain casebook play 4.18.2 then? The way that I read it, the whole act described came during a live ball. The retaliation by B1 during the live ball involved illegal contact(a punch that was judged "fighting"),and this illegal contact according to this case play is called a flagrant technical foul.

Iow, we have 2 different case book plays about fighting during a live ball that state different penalties. CB4.18.2 says the fighting fouls are flagrant technical fouls--and CB 10.4.4SitA says that the fighting fouls are flagrant personal fouls.