RULE 4, SECTION 18 FIGHTING
Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1 . . . An attempt to strike, punch or kick an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.
ART. 2 . . . An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act toward an opponent that causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting.



I need your opinions people. Although the NFHS attempted to write a very clear rule here, I believe that there are two very different ways of interpreting it. Please tell me what your understanding is when you read this rule.

Understanding #1: Does the rule mean that if a player commits an unsporting act and the opponent retaliates by fighting, then BY DEFINITION the first player's actions were in fact an attempt to instigate a fight and he too is charged with fighting? In other words, calling the flagrant foul is mandatory here because whether the first player wanted to fight or not does not matter once his opponent responded by doing so, and since the first player did something that sparked it, he too has to get the flagrant.

OR

Understanding #2 Does the rule mean that you have to decide the intent of the unsporting act committed by the first player and make the decision that his action was not only an unsporting act which caused his opponent to respond by fighting, but it also really was "an attempt to start a fight" before you can charge him with fighting? In other words flagrant foul is only charged to the first player if you believe that his intent was to start a fight.


I hope that everyone sees the difference in the two ways of reading that rule.


I'd like some feedback on a few sample plays:
1. We have the case book play of A1 dunking over B1 and then taunting him. B1 now punches A1. The ruling is that both are charged with flagrant technical fouls for fighting. Does everyone agree with and like this ruling?

2. A1 fouls B1. B1 in turn shoves A1 and gets in his face. A1 now punches B1. Is B1's shove fighting?

3. A1 fouls B1. B1 calls A1 a name and then turns his back and walks away. A1 runs after him and slugs him. Should B1 be charged with fighting?

4. A1 falls to the floor during a play and B1 gives him the Christian Laettner heel stomp in the chest. (a) A1 does nothing in return. (b) A1 jumps up and punches B1 in the face. Clearly B1's stomp was unsporting, and it could certainly be ruled flagrant even without any response by A1, but let's say for the sake of argument that you felt that it did not merit a DQ (as was the ruling by the officials in the '92 Duke/Kentucky game in which this happened), does B1 get just a normal T if A1 keeps his composure and doesn't retaliate, but he gets a flagrant T if A1 punches him? I have a hard time coming to grips with the severity of B1's T depending upon the reaction of his opponent and not just being solely judge on its own.


Any thoughts, help, clarifications, or ideas are appreciated.



Edited to fix the A1s and B1s in the final question which were mixed up.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 25th, 2006 at 09:46 AM]

Use your best judgment. And then don't second-guess yourself.

I think it means Understanding #1.

The way I understand it and how it's been explained to me is using your understanding #1.

Sample plays:
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. If you heard it-yes. It's taunting, similar to #1.
4a. B1 get's nothing called on him as his only mistake was falling down. A1 should get flagrant.
4b.(Sit 1) If B1 get's up and punches, then both get flagrant.
4c. (Sit 2) I think you mixed up your A1/B1 and it's hard to understand your question.

Luckily, I've yet to experience anything past a little chest bumping.

I agree with JR here. Use you're judgement and apply the rule. The rule allows for some discretion on the referee's part.

In relation to this rule and your other post I don't think the A1 who was originally fouled has any standing to appeal his DQ. Once he jumps up and pushes or otherwise gets in an opponents face he is trying to instigate a reaction, punch, shove, whatever...all of it is uncalled for and should be dealt with the way you did. Flagrent T's all around and a seat on the bench for the rest of the night.

Just thought that I would share a final comment to enhance the rules knowledge of all officials who read this forum. My state director contacted NFHS editor Mary Struckhoff and was told that Understanding #1 is the intent and correct interpretation of the rule.

I feel better about how we handled the game situation now.

I agree with all that it is intent #1, but I don't believe that situation #3, taunting, can fit in the definition of Article 1--there is no striking--therefore, you cannot have a flagrant fighting rule....striking is required....

Not true. If you taunt, and B1 retaliates by fighting, you are also charged with fighting.

Bob: I agree with that under Article 2....I didn't see that, but my comment was that it did not fit under Article 1...thanks for the clarification....Skarecrow

Hence this entire thread been about 4-18-<font color = red>2</font> :D

The case play above (#1) is fairly straightforward. The taunting appears to have been designed to instigate a forceful reaction from A1's opponent. But is there a problem with the uniform application of the case play? Let's try this: A1 drains a 3 in an overtime period of a hotly contested game. A1 gives the throat slash signal to B bench and B1 and strikes A1 in retaliation. Based on uniform case play application, both players are out of here. It seems to me the officials should have to determine the intent of the taunt and determine if the response is within "reason" (bad term to describe this, sorry). The ruling of the case play bails us out and both A1 and B1 can be charged with fighting but I think that B1's response to a technical foul by his opponent was unreasonable by any measure and only B2 should be ejected. If my example of taunting directed to someone other than his direct opponent may generate a fight, why have the taunting rule at all and simply cover it all with "instigating a fight"; flagrant foul?

I agree with you. It would have to be clear the taunt was intended to draw an opponent into an altercation IMO.