I know what that rules states, I can read, what I am saying is that it could be deemed as flagrant. Lets say that the swinging of the elbow broke the nose of the player and you just call a violation, the coach would go bullistic.

The flagrant/non-flagrant point doesn't have anything to do with JR's comments. JR is trying to point out to you that if there is contact during a live ball, it's can't be a technical foul; it's a personal foul.

It can still be a flagrant personal foul. But it's personal, not technical.

Live ball contact = personal foul.
Dead ball contact or non-contact foul = technical foul.

That's all that JR is trying to say.

No, you were saying that it could be a flagrant <b>technical</b> foul. It can't be a technical, by rule. If there's live-ball contact, you can't call a technical foul. It has to be a <b>personal</b> foul of some type.

If a player swings an elbow during a live ball and misses, it's a violation. If a player swings an elbow and contacts an opponent during a live ball, then it's a personal foul of some type- your choice.

Thanks for the clarification on this matter.

It's true, it's true....

Agreed. But that has nothing to do with JR's point. See my post directly above this one.

Agreed again! :) So toss the kid. But you're missing something. Your choices aren't limited to T or violation. See my first post in this thread.

Thanks
 

Thanks for the clarification again!

Re: Thanks
 

I think I over-clarified!! But the posts came so closely together, that I didn't realize you'd already responded to my first one. Sorry!

Re: Re: Thanks
 

No problem, we are all here to help "clarify" each others post. The thing is to get the call right!

Jurassic is correct
 

Ever try to flowchart this stuff? It can be done. It's way less ponderous than reading of a list of definitions, trying to find a match.

Re: Jurassic is correct
 

What stuff? The posts and replies?

If you're talking about flow-charting the options for whether to call a violation or foul, why bother? I gave you the 3 options in my first post.

Re: Re: Jurassic is correct
 

I gues flow charting Section 19, I may try that.

I have a reference (numbers may be off...from 03-04 book):

4-18 FIGHTING
Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur <FONT COLOR=BLUE>when the ball is dead or live</FONT>. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1 . . . An <FONT COLOR=BLUE>attempt to strike, punch or kick an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made</FONT>.

with

10-3 <FONT COLOR=BLUE>PLAYER TECHNICAL</FONT>
A player shall not:
ART. 10 . . . <FONT COLOR=BLUE>Be charged with fighting</FONT>.

A couple of experiences:

I had this happen in a collge game last year. The two players going for the rebound had been working hard against each other for the first several minutes of the second half. Nothing outside the lines, just bigs being bigs. Anyway, the defensive player gets the rebound, looks back and, in my opinion, measures the other player and swings an elbow that connects with the players throat. The player is taken off their feet by the contact. TWEET! I had my choice (intentional/flagrant). My call was flagrant based on the entire result of the act. No one even thought twice about it.

In another game, before the change in penalties included a violation, a player was being tightly defended when the offense made contact, nothing severe, but surely a call (PC)needed to be made to reinforce that swinging elbows is not something that will continue. Again, no one took issue with the call and the rest of the game went off without difficulty.

Not all situations are exactly the same, but having seen the plays in their entirety certainly makes all the difference in the call that you make.

We've had this discussion before, Camron. I was totally on your side on this. But I seem to remember that there was an argument on the other side that fighting could also be personal, instead of technical. Since that discussion, I've always considered live-ball fighting to be a personal foul; but now I can't remember exactly why. . . :confused: