By definition in the federation rule book no contact technical can occur during a LIVE ball...But...can a contact situation be considered unsporting and be assessed a T during a live ball? Here's the sitch;

A1 rebounds missed shot by team B. While in the backcourt, B1 is "smothering" (no contact) A1. A1 "chins" the ball and in frustration intentionally elbows B1. The action was not considered flagrant, but the calling official issued a Technical Foul for unsporting conduct, even though this was a CONTACT foul.

Our crew met following the play and I expressed my interpretation that the foul should either be

1)player control-if not intentional,
2)intentional personal foul - if intentional,
or 3)flagrant personal if deemed flagrant by the officials.

The crew stayed with the unsporting T.

Our entire crew is trying to bring clarification to this matter to either justify the final decision or to avoid making this same mistake again.

Please confirm the correct interp.....or let us know if there is an instance where this CAN be administered as an unsporting Technical foul.

Thanks in advance for your response(s)

imo, if the elbow is intentional, that is how it should be called, intentional foul, other team gets two shots and the ball(nfhs)!!! Probably border line, flagrant, you really have to see it to call it appropriately i think!!!

now if he/she is just pivoting and you deem it as not intentional, the offensive foul probably may be the call, again you just have to see it!

I believe the confusion is because excessively swinging the arms/elbows used to be a T. When it was changed to a violation, the definitions of rule 4-19 now came into play.

If ball is live, I'd go with the PC/Intentional/Flagrant option - if ball is dead, it's either Intentional or Technical (and possibly flagrant technical) by definition.

Tim:

Go to the head of the class for knowing your definitions, and the rest of your officiating crew goes to the corner with dunce caps on their heads. You were correct in assessment of the situation. A live ball contact foul is always a personal foul.

MTD, Sr.

MTD, what about NF 10-3-9? Player technical.....A player shall not.....be charged with fighting.

Any time elbows are swung and contact is made it is a T foul! If flugreunt then player is ejected as well...

Not true.

Somebody quote us the rule...

I don't have my new books with me but it used to be under 10-3-8g as a T without contact (2001-02).

Now without contact it is a violation... what rule?
Now with contact it is ??? ... what rule?

Hows about 9.13.3 as below
 

9.13 ART. 3 . . . Action of arm(s) and elbow(s) resulting from total body movements as in pivoting or movement of the ball incidental to feinting with it, releasing it, or moving it to prevent a held ball or loss of control shall not be considered excessive

I have used this as a rule cite when officials want to call something crazy. I can accept a PC call on occasion but in most cases a properly schooled player who is pivotting with full body movement engenders nothing more than incidental contact against a swarming defender. There must be a reason this action is specifically condoned...

Whaddyall think???

[Edited by justacoach on Feb 24th, 2005 at 05:58 PM]

Totally and completely wrong.

Buckley, by rule, it can't be a T. Call it an intentional foul. The pnealty is the same and you're within the rules.

Why is the crew so adamant that it be a T?

I've called it (violation) once this year. A1 dribbled across half court into a trap and picked up his dribble. B1 and B2 right up on him, but legal. He gets frustrated and starts swinging, and I call the violation.
His coach can't believe it and asks me how he's supposed to protect the ball.
what I wanted to say was, "by not dribbling into a trap." What I said was, "Not by swinging his elbows."

We are not talking about fighting in this play. Plus the fighting definition just causes more problems.

MTD, Sr.

I had a similar play in a college game a couple of weeks ago. Defense grabbed a rebound and felt the offensive player trying to go for the ball. Player turned head slightly and measured the location of the pressure. Player brought ball under chin and swung elbows to hit player in the throat who goes down in a heap. I called an intentional foul. Player wanted to know why it was intentional, and I replied that the only reason you are still in the game is because it was called intentional.

Thanks to all replies. The discussions confirm that I was right in my interpretation. The crew was not adamant about assessing a T, but because of some slight disagreement, we did not want to have lengthy debate at mid court and we went with the T... and left the calling official to explain. We talked as a crew again last night, and that official feels he, and we, were wrong in our application of the rules.

Live ball contact should be a personal foul...player control, intentional, or flagrant.

Thanks again.......on to new subjects.

With all due respect to TH and MTD, I think that an unsporting T CAN be called if you are penalizing the "unfair, unethical or dishonorable conduct" that precedes the contact. This has nothing to do with contact (even if it occurs because of this act)or excessive elbows. For example, if a player intentionally planted an elbow against someone's face, you would probably eject? What if this same action had missed? Ejection? Violation? You know the play where the player swings his elbow around in the air in an intimidating manner? Violation only?

Consider an off ball situation where opponents are in a joust, and one of them ends it by just shoving the other player off. That's a T and it not because of the contact but because of the act itself. One player pokes another in the chest with his finger in a menancing manner. Forget the contact and penalize the dishonorable conduct. Just because an act involves an elbow, I am not limiting myself only to an excessive elbow call and the resulting penalties.

Before you jump all over me for my opinion and ask for Rules support, please see 4-19-13.

IMHO

Mulk

The only way you can have a technical foul, is if the ball is dead. If I read it correctly, the ball was live, therefore it should be an intentional foul.

Go back to Rule 4 and read the definition of personal foul. Unless you rule the foul to be a fighting foul, a contact foul while the ball is live is always a personal foul.

MTD, Sr.

MTD,

Go back and read my post. Penalize the intimidating act - not the resulting contact. I tried to be very clear that just because an ACT involved an elbow, it does not prevent me from exercising an unsporting technical foul option.

Again, IMHO.

If you use only 4-19-13 then there are a lot of things you could apply. But when consulting additional rules you may find they fall under another category. Rule 10 describes the criteria we use to define such "unfair, unethical or dishonorable conduct.

Rule 10-3-8 concerns TEAM unsporting fouls.
Rule 10-3-7 concerns PLAYER unsporting fouls.
Rule 10-4-1 concerns BENCH unsporting fouls.

Intentional elbow to face? My options are:
1 Intentional PERSONAL foul.
2. Flagrant PERSONAL foul. Ejection. (I would call this one)

Excessive swinging elbows but miss?
Yes this is a vioaltion ONLY.
Quoting Rule 4-24-8 It is not legal to swing arms and elbows excessively. This occurs when:
a. ....
b. The AGRESSIVENESS with which the arms and elbows are swung COULD CAUSE INJURY to another player if contacted.

Using this description as a basis, an official will promptly and unhesitatingly call such action with arms and elbows a VIOLATION.

As a side note if you determine that the excessively swinging elbow constituted FIGHTING (10-3-8, 4-18-1&2) whether there was contact or not then assess the flagrant Technical Foul. It also fits defintion given in 4-19-13.

Don't know what you mean by jousting so let me respond with several scenarios. If jousting means contact by both players then since a live ball it is not a T unless the jousting is so severe you determine them to be fighting then assess both a flagrant T. If unsure to call it a fight yet you feel actions to be so severe to warrant ejection then call a Double Flagrant PERSONAL foul. Otherwise you have a double person foul.

If the jousting involves both engaged verbal sparring then by all means this fits the definition of unsporting technicals on both players. If your whistle was before the final shove then you have to assess an intentional technical foul which also results in ejection of that player. If the first player taunts verbally causing second to shove him away the you have an unsporting Techical on first player and an intentional foul on second

The finger poke again fits the definition of Unsporting technical as that is action which fall under 10-3-7b & c.

Ronny:

But your logic is wrong. The illegal act is the entire act and that is the illegal contact by A1 against B1. You cannot charge A1 with a unsportsmanlike technical foul because he started to swing his elbow at B1. You have to see the entire play.

MTD, Sr.

MTD,

I think that most elbow plays should be treated as an excessive elbow. But, there are plays where the act should be penalized. I think you see excessive elbow and I see an intimidating act. Billy Bad *** has just thrown an elbow that did not connect. My point is that not all acts involving an elbow has to be classified as an excessive elbow. If the entire play does not result in contact, then you could have an intimidating elbow that you are only going to treat as a violation? And, that's because you only want to put it into a category (excessive elbow) that might not fit every time.

If I take my elbow (no swing) and put it up under your chin in a menancing threatening manner (not roughly, not much contact)then you would not have any call?

Again, I see this particular play as much worse than poking a finger in my chest, pushing me off because of frustration, or even taunting. Unsporting technical is an option afforded me by 4-19-13.

Mulk

Ronny:

Go back and read all of NFHS R4-S19. You will see definitions of the two major categories of fouls: personal and technical. Personal fouls are of four types: common fouls (including player control fouls), intentional fouls, flagrant fouls, and fouls that are committed against a player in the act of shooting. Technical fouls are also are also can be intentional, flagrant, and those that are neither intentional nor flagrant. Unsportsmanlike fouls are also defined. The technical foul section of Rule 10 also gives more information concerning what are technical fouls.

The situation you described: A1 swinging his elbow and missing B1 is not that same as A1 swinging his elbow and NOT missing B1. In the later, A1 is guilty of a personal foul: common (player control), intentional, or flagrant. In the former, the official has to decide if A1's act is a violation (excessively swinging his elbows), and I should add here that excessively swinging one's elbows without making contact was made an infraction (orginally a violation in both NFHS and NCAA, then a technical foul in NFHS and still a violation in NCAA, and then back to a violation in both NFHS and NCAA) because it was an act that would intimidate a defender from attempting to play defense for fear of getting hit by the offensive player's elbows. If, in the official's judgement, A1 was attempting to hit B1 in the face with his elbow but missed, then A1 is guilty of a flagrant technical foul. My question to you is to tell the group why this is a flagrant technical foul.

MTD, Sr.

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

What's wrong with intentional? If the kid plans and carefully aims the elbow, why not call it flagrant?

So, a defensive player grabs rebound, chins ball, and pivots to look up court. In doing so, she plants elbow squarely in face of opponent, who was facing her but doing little other than watching, knocking her down. I called it a pc. Coach says "that's just good basketball. We teach chinning the ball." Should this have been incidental?

And regarding excessive, what about the over zealous rebounder who takes a couple of swings when all the opponents are already heading down court...no one was even pressuring her. Would you still call a violation when she was basically swinging at thin air? I didn't. Coach wanted it.

Incidental?? When the defender went down?? If coach seriously thinks that's "just good basketball", then he needs to get a clue. Like "boxing out". If there's contact, and displacement, it's a foul. Period.

I know this is not in accordance with the rule book but we were instructed prior to the season that the state association decided that excessively swinging elbows and making contact is assessed as a technical foul. I do not know the reason they were using. Having read all the responses here I will ask prior to next season for an interpetation. Personally, I would prefer intentional since you get the same result as a T (2 shots plus the ball) and, for some reason, coaches and fans seem to react better to an itentional than a T, IMO.

Rao,

How many intentionals can a player have before he is DQ'd?
How many technicals can a player have before he is DQ'd (ejected)? Also, in Georgia, an ejection carries a 2 games suspension.

So, they are not the same.

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.

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.

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, 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

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

Oh, and stop using all caps, please.

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

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

JR,

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

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.

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 <b>personal</b> 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?

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.

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.

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

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 <b>technical</b> 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.

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.

[/B][/QUOTE]Be afraid. Be very afraid! :eek:

:D

Ronny:

It is obvious from your post above that you are either an inexperienced official who is still learning the ins and outs of the rules, or you are a veteran official who never did learn the rules and only officiate in order to go looking for trouble. Your post above is just plain unalderated nonsense.

MTD, Sr.

MTD,

I'm not either. As a matter of fact, I want to be able to handle trouble IF it presents itself without getting tied up by generic statements like "you cannot have a technical foul if contact occurs during a live ball" unless there is a way around it. i.e. unsporting technical foul. Ignore the contact, penalize the act.

You sound frustrated with me, but I did notice that you did not imply that Bob Jenkins was inexperienced or looking for trouble when he expressed his opinion. I think that he stated that there is flexibility there to exercise this option. Is it only me that frustrates you?

I am trying to understand your viewpoint by asking questions and if they offend you, I'll quit asking YOU these questions. Or, if as I suspect, you can't answer them, I'll quit asking YOU these questions. But, you have never told me why I can't exercise this unsporting foul option afforded me by rule 4.19.13. When people like JR, Bob Jenkins, TH, Mick or you put forth an opinion, I am going to set up and take notice. But, don't expect me to jump off a cliff just because you do.

More importantly, don't try to shout out my opinions with weak attempts at questioning my experiences or motives. My experiences may be suspect but they do involve a lot of years. My motives are not questionable.

Ronny:

You can't use NFHS R4-S19-A13, and here is why. The original play of this thread reads as follows: "A1 rebounds missed shot by team B. While in the backcourt, B1 is "smothering" (no contact) A1. A1 "chins" the ball and in frustration intentionally elbows B1. The action was not considered flagrant, but the calling official issued a Technical Foul for unsporting conduct, even though this was a CONTACT foul."

A1 intentionally hit B1 with his elbow. The amount of time from the moment that A1 started to swing his elbow at B1 and the moment A1's elbow made contact with B1's chest (I am making an educated assumption that B1 was hit in his chest, because if he was hit in his face A1's foul should have been a flagrant personal foul, but that is another thread) was no more than a second. You have to look at the entire play. If you want to apply NFHS R4-S19-A13 to the time period starting with A1 swinging his elbow until just before his elbo makes contact with B1's chest, then you also must charge A1 with a second technical foul for illegally contacting B1 while the ball was dead, because the ball became dead with the foul under NFHS R4-S19-A13, and you cannot have it both ways.

You want to divide a one second play into two seperate acts and you cannot do it. As I said before, if you cannot explain it do not call it. The rules define A1's actions as an intentional personal foul. The rules do not allow for anything more.

You talk about A1 swinging his elbows in an intimidating manner so that B1 will not attempt to play defense against him. I quote from my post in this thread of Feb. 25/Fri.(10:22pmEST), 2005:

"The situation you described: A1 swinging his elbow and missing B1 is not that same as A1 swinging his elbow and NOT missing B1. In the later, A1 is guilty of a personal foul: common (player control), intentional, or flagrant. In the former, the official has to decide if A1's act is a violation (excessively swinging his elbows), and I should add here that excessively swinging one's elbows without making contact was made an infraction (orginally a violation in both NFHS and NCAA, then a technical foul in NFHS and still a violation in NCAA, and then back to a violation in both NFHS and NCAA) because it was an act that would intimidate a defender from attempting to play defense for fear of getting hit by the offensive player's elbows. If, in the official's judgement, A1 was attempting to hit B1 in the face with his elbow but missed, then A1 is guilty of a flagrant technical foul. My question to you is to tell the group why this is a flagrant technical foul."

Furthermore, Daryl Long has quoted NFHS R4-S24-A8 as the rule that applies to your situation when A1 swings his elbows in a way to keep an opponent from playing defense. You cannot apply NFHS R4-S19-A13 to your situation because R4-S24-A8 addresses that specific situation.

I repeat my advice to you, do not go looking for trouble where there is none. We have ample rules to apply to the situation being discussed.

Lets not forget that if A1 intentionally swings his elbow in an attempt to hit B1 in the face, we know have a flagrant foul. If contact is made, the foul is a personal foul, and if there is no contact it is a technical foul, but in both cases the foul is a flagrant foul.

MTD, Sr.

[Edited by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. on Feb 27th, 2005 at 11:33 AM]

JR:

I read NFHS Casebook Play 4.18.2 as follows: A1's taunting foul causes the ball to become dead if Team A had managed to get the ball out-of-bounds for its throw-in or to remain dead if Team A had not. That means that B1's punch is a dead ball contact foul and therefore a technical foul. Since A1's actions caused B1 to retaliate, we have a fight, by definition and both A1 and B1 are disquailified. I should point out that taunting by itself can be either a non-flagrant technical foul or a flagrant foul depending upon the nature of the taunt. If B1 had never retaliated and A1's taunt was of a non-flagrant nature, then A1 would not be disquaified. The CB Play does not tell us whether A1's taunt was a non-flagrant or flagrant foul, but if it was a non-flagrant foul, it became flagrant when B1 retaliated. But, before the fighting definition and the cancelling out of free throws for technical fouls, this situation would have been a false double foul. With Team B shooting free throws for A1's technical foul, followed by Team A shooting free throws for B1's technical foul and thenr receiving the ball for a throw-in at the division line opposite the table. And depending upon the severity of the taunt and the severity of the contact by B1 against A1 either one or both may or may not have been disqualified from the game for a flagrant foul.

NFHS CB Play 10.4.4, Sit. A is even more murkey. If the only fouls we have is A1 and B1 punching each other, what difference does it make if we define their actions as a fight or not. Both players are disqualified, no free throws are shot because this is what use to be a true double foul and what is now called a double personal foul. But when bench personnel start leaving the bench area, we now have problems.

I have been officiating basketball for 34 years and I probably should not say this, but I have had players mix it up on the court and be disqualified from the game because their actions were flagrant, but I cannot ever remember having bench personnel come on the floor to take part in the festivities. The only situation that came close to that was when fans rushed onto the floor of a boys' varsity game I was officiating in 1984 in Los Angeles when we had an intentional foul with less than two minutes left in the game, and I would rather not discuss that situation here right now.

I hope I have answered your question.

MTD, Sr.

MTD,

4-24-8 applies to YOUR situation, but it does not address MY situation. This whole thread started because I disagree with a general statement that states you can't have a technical if contact occurs during a live ball. Also, I disagree that any act involving an elbow HAS to fall under 4-24-8. Rule 4-19-13 allows me this flexibility and DOES address my situations more appropriately.

1. The finger poke is an example where contact occurs during a live ball where I would invoke unsporting technical and you would invoke intentional personal. Or, maybe you would call taunting. If you call either tech, then you are ignoring the contact and penalizing the act. If you call an intentional here, you have set a precedence for the rest of the game. All future finger pokes are intentionals.

2. A Billy Bad $ss intimidating elbow that does not involve contact and it wasn't meant to involve contact, you would invoke violation and I would invoke an unsporting tech for intimidation. An intimidating act treated like walking, 3 seconds, palming, etc? Furthermore, what if the other team had the ball?

3. A player (not both players) pushing another player out of frustration during a live ball is another example of contact during a live ball where you would invoke an intentional and I would invoke an unsporting T. Again, I am ignoring the contact and penalizing the action.

On a true-false written test, I guess I just will miss the question if stated that you CAN'T have a tech during live ball situation if contact occurs. During the game, I am not going to miss the opportunity to penalize an intimidating act when I see one. I don't see this as looking for trouble. Who would this trouble?

If my stance on this aggravates you, so be it. But, I didn't appreciate you calling me inexperienced or accusing me of an official looking for trouble because I don't agree with you on this. I am not like a lot of people on the board, I do respect your opinion. I heard what you had to say.

thanks

Mulk

Ronny:

You are wrong by rule on all three points. All officials have to be on the same page. You do not want to officate by the rules; you want to officate the way you want to officiate. If that is the way you want to officiate, then I sugguest, quite admantly, that you stop officating basketball because you are doing the game a disservice.

MTD, Sr.

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 <b>technical</b> 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. [/B][/QUOTE]

I read NFHS Casebook Play 4.18.2 as follows: A1's taunting foul causes the ball to become dead if Team A had managed to get the ball out-of-bounds for its throw-in or to remain dead if Team A had not. That means that B1's punch is a dead ball contact foul and therefore a technical foul.
[/B][/QUOTE]Naw, I think that you're reading it that way in order to try and support your personal opinion of this debate. The problems still remain that:
1) The case book play does not state that the whistle went before the retaliation.
2) When B1 retaliated, his punch may have missed. It doesn't matter because it's still a fight as per R4-18-1. There goes your dead ball contact foul theory.
3) The whole scenario in this case book play is considered one act. If you didn't consider it that way, then the book call for what you are proposing above isn't a fight but a false double foul. Iow, a technical foul during a live ball for taunting followed by a separate technical foul during the succeeding dead ball for fighting. That's not what the case play says happened. The case plays says that A1's T was for fighting, not taunting.
3) Change that case book play play to A1 taunting by finger-poking. It extrapolates the same way. Double technical foul and the initial T involved contact. If you call it any other way, you're back to a false double foul.
4) Rule 10-3-4 still says that fighting is a technical foul. It doesn't differentiate between fighting during a live ball or fighting during a dead ball. If it's fighting during a live ball, you could have contact fouls called Ts.


Those citations support some of Mulk's suppositions, and negate yours. Might be wise to slow down on the "leave Dodge" talk to Mulk. You might be on a stagecoach too.:D

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 27th, 2005 at 04:14 PM]

MTD,

Do you mean ALL officials have to be on YOUR page? If so, that leaves a lot of officials that need to stop officiating based on some of the debates that you have been involved with on this board. I hope that officials in your area are able to express their opinions without being invited to leave the game if they disagree with you. Furthermore, I hope that they are able to tell you what "I'm fixing to tell you" without fear of their schedules being affected.

Naw, I won't.

Again, thanks for the discussion. I did learn something. Unlike you, I will consider your opinion, but because of your pompous attitude, I plan to temper the way I share my rules knowledge with guys in our local association. Starting now, I plan to quit requesting that they stop officiating because of their rules ignorance. I have my list out and will be spending all day contacting those that I have asked to leave the game over the years.

Mulk

I read NFHS Casebook Play 4.18.2 as follows: A1's taunting foul causes the ball to become dead if Team A had managed to get the ball out-of-bounds for its throw-in or to remain dead if Team A had not. That means that B1's punch is a dead ball contact foul and therefore a technical foul.
[/B][/QUOTE]Naw, I think that you're reading it that way in order to try and support your personal opinion of this debate. The problems still remain that:
1) The case book play does not state that the whistle went before the retaliation.
2) When B1 retaliated, his punch may have missed. It doesn't matter because it's still a fight as per R4-18-1. There goes your dead ball contact foul theory.
3) The whole scenario in this case book play is considered one act. If you didn't consider it that way, then the book call for what you are proposing above isn't a fight but a false double foul. Iow, a technical foul during a live ball for taunting followed by a separate technical foul during the succeeding dead ball for fighting. That's not what the case play says happened. The case plays says that A1's T was for fighting, not taunting.
3) Change that case book play play to A1 taunting by finger-poking. It extrapolates the same way. Double technical foul and the initial T involved contact. If you call it any other way, you're back to a false double foul.
4) Rule 10-3-4 still says that fighting is a technical foul. It doesn't differentiate between fighting during a live ball or fighting during a dead ball. If it's fighting during a live ball, you could have contact fouls called Ts.


Those citations support some of Mulk's suppositions, and negate yours. Might be wise to slow down on the "leave Dodge" talk to Mulk. You might be on a stagecoach too.:D

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 27th, 2005 at 04:14 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]


JR:

I agree with you completely that the two CB Play's are confusing.

But in the Rule 4 CB Play, A1's taunting foul causes the ball to stay dead if it was dead when A1 taunted or to become dead if the ball was live at the time that A1 taunted B1. In either case, A1's foul is a technical foul and B1's foul is a dead ball contact foul and also a techncial foul.

And as I stated in my earlier post, the Rule 10 CB Play is just a run of the mill double personal foul between A1 and B1 with both players being disqualified if nothing else happens; bench personnel leaving the bench area to enter the court changes the double personal foul to flagrant technical fouls because A1 and B1's actions are now defined as a fighting.

I am not reading the CB Plays to support my opinion, I am reading them per the rules. I just think that the fighting definition could be better written and deleted all together. I think that the CB Plays handled the situations correctly by rule, but the fighting definition is confusing.

MTD, Sr.

Young Man, your reading of the rules tell me that you still have a lot to learn about the rules. I do not suffer lightly officials who do not want to follow the rules or interprete the rules correctly. The logic that you are using cannot be defended. You are trying to divide a single action into two actions so you can impose a penalty that is not supported by rule. I am sorry if you do not appreaciate be spoken to in such a frank manner but any official that attempts to apply the rules in such an illogical manner is just headed for trouble. Remember, what I told you, if you cannot explain it don't call it.

MTD, Sr.

1) But in the Rule 4 CB Play, A1's taunting foul causes the ball to stay dead if it was dead when A1 taunted or to become dead if the ball was live at the time that A1 taunted B1. In either case, A1's foul is a technical foul and B1's foul is a dead ball contact foul and also a techncial foul.

2) And as I stated in my earlier post, the Rule 10 CB Play is just a run of the mill double personal foul between A1 and B1 with both players being disqualified if nothing else happens;<font color = red> bench personnel leaving the bench area to enter the court changes the double personal foul to flagrant technical fouls because A1 and B1's actions are now defined as a fighting</font>.

I am not reading the CB Plays to support my opinion, I am reading them per the rules. I just think that the fighting definition could be better written and deleted all together. I think that the CB Plays handled the situations correctly by rule, but the fighting definition is confusing.

[/B][/QUOTE]1) The casebook play does not specify when the ball became dead. You're trying to make it dead at a point in time that will support your opinion. Unfortunately the case book play does not read definitively enough to support your hypothesis. The bottom line is you're still applying your opinion only to this case book play to attain the result that you <b>think</b> should be there.

2) Are you serious? A double personal foul turn into a double technical foul at the waving of Mark's magic wand? C'mon now, Mark. Even for you, that's so far out, it's ridiculous. The case book very plainly and unequivacably says "A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws result from the double <b>personal</b> foul". You can dig up James Naismith and J. Dallas Shirley and there's still nowayinhell even with their help that you can turn a double personal foul into a double technical foul in that case play. If there was, it would have been somewhere in that case play already. Lah me! That one's unbelievable.

You people are beginning to bore the he11 out of me.

Buckley11,

Just stop clicking on the link in the e-mail. You will get only 1 "new reply" notification per time you check the thread. So if you stop reading this thread, you will no longer receive mail concerning replies. Happy? ;)

Well Tony...I'm bored tonight so I have read all this stuff.
(SWAT team night shift...no terrorists around, so have a lot of time on my hands.) :)

Mark,
I like the discussion and the way ronny has presented his case.
You have made good points per the rules...but so have Bob, JR and others with regards to the flexability issues.

I gotta tell ya Mark, I agree with ronny on this finger in the chest thing, (or similar live ball contact, unsporting acts) I gotta believe the powers that be have given us this flexability to judge certain acts, not covered exactly by the rules, the way we see it or even the way we "feel" it.

If you want to tell me to "leave Dodge", and I actually adhered to your request, then Dodge City is going to be short one official for a pretty big tournament in a couple weeks. ;)

Your friend buckley11 is really gonna be p1ssed at you when he gets an email telling him you're bored.

Yeah, you e-mail them with your resume.

Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they do not know the rules and how to apply them.

If not agreeing with you meant someone should stop officiating 99% of this forum would need to hang it up.:rolleyes:

Mark, you should not run Ronnie down as it is obvious to me that he is honestly trying to find out 2 things.
1: "live ball contact can never be called a Technical foul"' Is this generic statement true?, and
2: what kind of situations would apply per rule 4-19-13. He gave some situations which include contact and asked the question "Why can't we exercise unsporting foul option afforded us per rule 4-19-13.

Answer 1: I believe the statement is true. It only seems false when we are talking actions called fighting. (More on fighting below)

Answer to 2: How to apply the definition given in rule 4-19-13 is explained in Rule 10 for teams, players, and bench personnel but the rule book also says that the rule could apply to other acts not listed.

The answer to Ronnie's question is that my only way to exclude the act as a Technical foul is to find a specific rule placing it in another category.

For Ronnies swinging the elbows question I replied earlier it is always a violation even though so agressive (or intimidating if you wish) that it would cause injury to another player if contacted and gave Rule 4-24-8 which specifically states such. A1 is guilty whether he is in player control, another teammate has the ball, or the other team is in control.

From the discussion by JR and MTD they both agree to the vagueness of what constitutes a fight and brought up several case book citations. My comments follow:

Case 4.18.2: The dunk (made basket) caused the ball to become dead so the official's whistle in this case is of no consequence. Both the taunt and the retaliatory punch were during a dead ball. And supposing the taunt by A1 was a finger pointed at B1 or even a finger poke to the chest of B1 the final ruling is still the same. Fight per 4-18 and 10-3-9.

Case 10.4.4 Sit A is not confusing at all to me.

Fighting is a flagrant act. 4-18; 4-19-4.
Fighting can occur during a live or dead ball. 4-18
Flagrant fouls are personal or technical fouls. 4-19-4
If personal: contact ocurred during live ball. 4-19-1
If Technical: contact during dead ball 4-19-5c,
noncontact fouls 4-19-5b, 10-3, or
acts which causes a fight in retaliation 4-18-2

Punches during live ball are flagrant personal fouls and called a fight. Punches during a dead ball are flagrant technical fouls and called a fight. A finger poke (with or without contact) which causes another player to retaliate by throwing a punch (whther contact or not) is by definition a fight also and if you want I will go through each scenario possible. In every case I can come to the conclusion that contact during the live ball is never a technical foul.

Ronnie, if you wish to go through a bunch of scenarios either on this forum or through e-mails I am happy to do so.
Either way it is best discussed one at a time (so i don't have to write a book each time I post).

Let me clarify one thing about the poke in the chest. If I see this in the game I am calling a technical foul on the offender with or without contact (10-3-7c). As 10-3-7 states, it is the unsporting ACTS or CONDUCT of the player that I am penalizing. It is not the actual touching of the finger to the chest that I am penalizing but the whole act with the underlying message meant to intimidate, disrespect, taunt, or bait the opponent.

Naw, I think that you're reading it that way in order to try and support your personal opinion of this debate. The problems still remain that:
1) The case book play does not state that the whistle went before the retaliation.
2) When B1 retaliated, his punch may have missed. It doesn't matter because it's still a fight as per R4-18-1. There goes your dead ball contact foul theory.
3) The whole scenario in this case book play is considered one act. If you didn't consider it that way, then the book call for what you are proposing above isn't a fight but a false double foul. Iow, a technical foul during a live ball for taunting followed by a separate technical foul during the succeeding dead ball for fighting. That's not what the case play says happened. The case plays says that A1's T was for fighting, not taunting.
3) Change that case book play play to A1 taunting by finger-poking. It extrapolates the same way. Double technical foul and the initial T involved contact. If you call it any other way, you're back to a false double foul.
4) Rule 10-3-4 still says that fighting is a technical foul. It doesn't differentiate between fighting during a live ball or fighting during a dead ball. If it's fighting during a live ball, you could have contact fouls called Ts.


Those citations support some of Mulk's suppositions, and negate yours. Might be wise to slow down on the "leave Dodge" talk to Mulk. You might be on a stagecoach too.:D

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 27th, 2005 at 04:14 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]


JR:

I agree with you completely that the two CB Play's are confusing.

But in the Rule 4 CB Play, A1's taunting foul causes the ball to stay dead if it was dead when A1 taunted or to become dead if the ball was live at the time that A1 taunted B1. In either case, A1's foul is a technical foul and B1's foul is a dead ball contact foul and also a techncial foul.

And as I stated in my earlier post, the Rule 10 CB Play is just a run of the mill double personal foul between A1 and B1 with both players being disqualified if nothing else happens; bench personnel leaving the bench area to enter the court changes the double personal foul to flagrant technical fouls because A1 and B1's actions are now defined as a fighting.

I am not reading the CB Plays to support my opinion, I am reading them per the rules. I just think that the fighting definition could be better written and deleted all together. I think that the CB Plays handled the situations correctly by rule, but the fighting definition is confusing.

MTD, Sr. [/B][/QUOTE]

Mark,

Even I am confused at your interpretations of the above mentioned case plays. I may have said this before but:

Case 4.18.2 the ball became dead on the made basket (A1's dunk). No whistle necessary and the taunt and punch were during a dead ball.

Sase 10.4.4 sit A. Players punching each other during a live ball contitutes a fight (ie dbl flagrant person fouls)whether or not any substitutes enter the court. Besides that, it is the fight between A1 and B1 that each scenario ( a, b, and c) says that the substitutes either become/ did not become involved in.

Preacher,

Amen brother. You apply this paragraph to an intimidating elbow scenario and "we got no" five page thread. But only if you want to because I wouldn't want you to stop officiating if you disagree with me.

Mulk

Hey, did you see the Oscar Awards last night? For all the pre-show hype I thought Chris Rock was kinda tame.

What do you think?

Hey, did you see the Oscar Awards last night? For all the pre-show hype I thought Chris Rock was kinda tame.

What do you think? [/B][/QUOTE]Watch the Oscar Awards? Would I miss the grandiose pageant that celebrates the brightest and greatest cinematic accomplishments of the previous year? Or, to maybe be a little more honest, would I miss seeing whose tits are closest to falling out of their dress this year? Hmmmm, maybe there should be an Oscar in <b>that</b> category.

Anyhoo, I digress......

I'm back. Gotta quit digressing. Gonna go blind one of these days.

When I got rid of my old coal-fired computer(EPA made me do it...sumthin' about air pollution), I got a brand new, nuclear-powered top-of-the-line A+++ 'puter that does everything. Everything, I tell ya. Even got CD and DVD makers on it to make my own CD's and movies. Well, I bribed the 8-year old kid from next door to show me how to use that sucker. Yup, he set it up to a p2p network and I now make my own CD's and DVD's. Well, I downloaded and burned a copy of Million Dollar Baby on a request from my wife. Well, not actually a request; more like her giving me a choice of doing it or speaking in a high, squeaky voice. She and a friend were watching it Saturday night....they asked me if I wanted to see it with them, but, unfortunately the Ecstasy Channel was screening that classic <i>Debbie Does Houghton</i> and you know I always hate to miss that one. Anyway, I was walking by, and my wife says "You gotta see this". I look---and Clint Eastwood is crying. Yup, Dirty Harry is just ablubbering his damn eyes out. Almost made me sick to watch it. John Wayne never cried. Nope, you never saw the Duke blubbering away like that. Lah me!

And then the damn picture wins an Oscar? You watch now, ol' Clint is jes' gonna be sobbing his eyes out in every new picture he's in. Lah me. There's sumthin' wrong with the world today.


What's a Chrisrock?

Watch the Oscar Awards? Would I miss the grandiose pageant that celebrates the brightest and greatest cinematic accomplishments of the previous year? Or, to maybe be a little more honest, would I miss seeing whose tits are closest to falling out of their dress this year? Hmmmm, maybe there should be an Oscar in <b>that</b> category.

Anyhoo, I digress......

I'm back. Gotta quit digressing. Gonna go blind one of these days.

When I got rid of my old coal-fired computer(EPA made me do it...sumthin' about air pollution), I got a brand new, nuclear-powered top-of-the-line A+++ 'puter that does everything. Everything, I tell ya. Even got CD and DVD makers on it to make my own CD's and movies. Well, I bribed the 8-year old kid from next door to show me how to use that sucker. Yup, he set it up to a p2p network and I now make my own CD's and DVD's. Well, I downloaded and burned a copy of Million Dollar Baby on a request from my wife. Well, not actually a request; more like her giving me a choice of doing it or speaking in a high, squeaky voice. She and a friend were watching it Saturday night....they asked me if I wanted to see it with them, but, unfortunately the Ecstasy Channel was screening that classic <i>Debbie Does Houghton</i> and you know I always hate to miss that one. Anyway, I was walking by, and my wife says "You gotta see this". I look---and Clint Eastwood is crying. Yup, Dirty Harry is just ablubbering his damn eyes out. Almost made me sick to watch it. John Wayne never cried. Nope, you never saw the Duke blubbering away like that. Lah me!

And then the damn picture wins an Oscar? You watch now, ol' Clint is jes' gonna be sobbing his eyes out in every new picture he's in. Lah me. There's sumthin' wrong with the world today.


What's a Chrisrock? [/B][/QUOTE]

Can you say tits here? I hope we don't get fined by the FCC. And a Chris Rock is who you go to when you can't get Denzel Washington.

BTW...your 8 year old buddy didn't do you any favors.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12...vs_bittorrent/
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118628,00.asp
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118485,00.asp
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-243432.html?legacy=cnet
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6504024/
http://www.mpaa.org/Press/RecTVComplaint.htm

BTW...your 8 year old buddy didn't do you any favors.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12...vs_bittorrent/
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118628,00.asp
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118485,00.asp
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-243432.html?legacy=cnet
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6504024/
http://www.mpaa.org/Press/RecTVComplaint.htm


[/B][/QUOTE]I knew all that. That's why I used Chuck's name and address when I joined.

I knew all that. That's why I used Chuck's name and address when I joined.

[/B][/QUOTE]

Hmmmm...that explains the "Someone has already chosen that ID" message when I tried..