Regular and flagrent T

[lukealex]

Happened in my IM game: Two players get into it a little, one player is given a T and the other a flagrent T. Different severity, but would they still offset and go to POI this year? At the time we went to AP, but not this year.

[tomegun]

Give us more info on what happened and what happened first.

[lukealex]

A1 is talking, being cocky, well deserving of a T. He gets one, but right after the T was called B1 pushed A1 hard, so the flagrent was given to B1.

[Camron Rust]

It appears you may be considering B1's action a fight. If so, you can also toss A1 if his actions provoke a fight. I'm not sure I'd consider a hard push a flagrant is this type of situation and not consider it a fight. (For B1, there is no difference) but it allows you to address A1's actions with more options.

Whichever you chose, the T's are considered a double T and the FTs offset. Possession to POI as you suggest.

[VaLadyRef]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Camron Rust
[B]It appears you may be considering B1's action a fight. If so, you can also toss A1 if his actions provoke a fight. I'm not sure I'd consider a hard push a flagrant is this type of situation and not consider it a fight. (For B1, there is no difference) but it allows you to address A1's actions with more options.



Why and in what situation would you not consider a hard push flagrant? And wouldn't a flagrant technical disqualify B1, thus making a difference?

[deecee]

if A1's action provoked B1's response then both are as guilty -- it depends what A1 said thou and if he was walking away or if he seemed intent on being a jackass -- it like if A1 takes a cheap shot at B1 and misses and B1 pushes him back -- both are equally as guilty even though A1 didnt have any contact -- but then again it depends on what A1 said and when B1 pushed him what was A1's mannerisms -- was he backing down after you T'd him up or was he still in B1's face.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by deecee
if A1's action provoked B1's response then both are as guilty -- it depends what A1 said thou and if he was walking away or if he seemed intent on being a jackass -- it like if A1 takes a cheap shot at B1 and misses and B1 pushes him back -- both are equally as guilty even though A1 didnt have any contact -- but then again it depends on what A1 said and when B1 pushed him what was A1's mannerisms -- was he backing down after you T'd him up or was he still in B1's face.

Why would it make any difference at all if A1 was backing down after he committed the act that warranted the T? If A1 hadda punched B1 in the face and then walked away, would you have a different call than if A1 punched B1 in the face and then kept yapping at him? You penalize the punch, not what happened after the punch. If you want to, you can penalize those post-punch actions separately.

[drothamel]

Seems like timing is an issue here. B1 gets a flagrant T, without question. But, since the regular T had already been given to A1 at the time of the push, can it be changed? Since the actions of A1 clearly caused the reaction of B1, can you go back and call A1's T flagrant? I'm not sure about that, even though it is probably the right thing to do.

[deecee]

because if A1 calls B1 a punk then turns around to walk away and then B1 shoves him to the ground is the same thing as throwing a punch -- do you not like to read what I typed or do you just think that saying something and doing something are the same -- because i can tell you saying and doing are 2 different things and most ppl say but dont do -

listen as with a lot of refs just do what seems safest and just t them all up because A1 deserved that shove for saying something smart -- i think you probably handled it the right way unless A1 was still being a wise *** to B1 as the shove occured then they both need to go -- but if the shove happened like you said after you took care of A1 with a T then B1 deserves to go for escalating the situation which you seemed to have under control.

like on a hard foul -- regular or intentional or flagrant sometimes you have to wait a second to gauge intent of the defender by how he acts after the foul -- to just throw a flagrant T or an intentional foul are very different and carry different consequences -- if a player fouls someone hard and its borderline flagrant but he seems clearly upset with what he did and goes to pick the other player of the ground and appologizes right away and you think he was just palying hard and thats it then dont give him the flagrant T -- its good sometimes to let the play of the game handle itself -- remember blow your whistle then signal foul and in a second or 2 give a flagrant t or an intentional -- now i have to add my disclaimer before i hear -- OOOO what if he gets punched in the head then kicked in the groin then the guy who beat him up goes to help him up and appologizes OOOO what then -- then i say use some @!#$@#$ common sense.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by drothamel
Seems like timing is an issue here. B1 gets a flagrant T, without question. But, since the regular T had already been given to A1 at the time of the push, can it be changed? Since the actions of A1 clearly caused the reaction of B1, can you go back and call A1's T flagrant? I'm not sure about that, even though it is probably the right thing to do.

Your judgement. If you felt that A1 instigated the altercation, then you certainly can call his T flagrant. FED rule 4-18-2 backs you up on that one--> "Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as an attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act towards an opponent that causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting". That description fits this situation nicely.

[blindzebra]

I'm tossing them both.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Your judgement. If you felt that A1 instigated the altercation, then you certainly can call his T flagrant. FED rule 4-18-2 backs you up on that one--> "Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as an attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act towards an opponent that causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting". That description fits this situation nicely.

JR, you must be so evil they added an extra 6 to your post count.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by blindzebra
[/B]

JR, you must be so evil they added an extra 6 to your post count. [/B][/QUOTE]Evil? Moi?


That makes it 666+1.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by VaLadyRef

And wouldn't a flagrant technical disqualify B1, thus making a difference?

I was saying if it was hard enough for a flagrant, it's probably a fight...giving you reason to toss A1 too. Flagrant or Flagrant/fight is all the same to B1.

Originally posted by VaLadyRef

Why and in what situation would you not consider a hard push flagrant?

Why would a hard push be a flagrant foul? Intentional I'd agree with, but rarely flagrant. Flagrant must truely be outrageous or with the intent to harm. A hard push just may be an overboard failed attempt to play basketball.

Now, grabbing the player and slamming them to the floor...flagrant.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Jun 30th, 2005 at 09:33 PM]

[BktBallRef]

In NC, A1 would have received a flagrant T for taunting/baiting and B1 would have received a flagrant T for fighting. Both would also have received a 2 game suspension.

Even without a state policy governing this situation, you could still have made the same calls in your game.

But I believe your question was more in regards to how the administer. This is a double technical foul. no matter whether they are ruled intnetional, unsporting, or flagrant. Makes no difference.