Funny how it's always the other person that needs to talk to a rules interpreter..............

So, from JR's previous posts this is what he's saying.........

Player A1 grabs the back of player B1 jersey running up the court.
1) JR has an intentional personal foul on A1. B1 turns and looks at A1
but does nothing.
2) JR has an intentional personal foul on A1. B1 turns and takes a swing
at A1. JR now changes that personal foul to a flagrant on A1 because
B1 retaliates with fighting, and A1 was the instigator.

So how can the same action by A1 result in different calls?? Just by the reaction of B1?? Don't think so. A flagrant foul is for fouls of violent or savage in nature. Grabbing the back of one's jersey does not qualify, neither does the elbow/push.

I don't believe the FED is into punishing A1 for B1's uncontrollable actions.

Well, you might not think so; but in this case, what you think doesn't matter. Here's the definition of fighting, which JR has already posted a couple times:

So you see that you can have an unsporting act that on its own might not warrant an ejection. But if the act causes an opponent to retaliate, then the original act is considered fighting. You might not like that definition, but it is what it is.

You seem to have taken a dislike to JR, and that's ok. He can be a grouch. But you'd be well-served not to argue the rules with him. There are about a half-dozen people on this forum who know the rules inside and out, backward and forwards. JR's one of them.

Take it for what it's worth.

1) Might not be a bad idea for you to contact one too.:) The point that I was making to Camron wasn't being just me being derisory, believe it or not. I respect Camron's overall knowledge of the rules and their application. That doesn't mean that we can't argue and disagree. In cases where you get conflicting interpretations, like this one, it's always a good idea for both sides to run their thoughts past a knowledgeable person whose rules acumen they trust. Maybe an IAABO rules interpreter for his local Board like Chuck Elias......:)

2) Please don't tell me what I've been saying in previous posts unless you can accurately quote me. I never said anything resembling what you're saying above; I never discussed someone grabbing a shirt at any time. That's <b>your</b> invention. I discussed an <b>intentional push</b> leading to a fight that I saw on the film provided. From there, Chuck has already told you what the rules state about an unsporting act leading to a fight. I've also cited those same rules many times so far in this thread; if you disagree or you don't believe me, hey, that's certainly fine with me.

3) The FED isn't in to punishing anybody. It just wants officials to follow their rules. Now.... here's where you and I obviously completely disagree; I don't believe that it is <b>ever</b> an official's job either to </b>punish</b> anyone that we have to deal with- coach, player, fan,etc. It is up to the pertinent league, state or national governing body, police, etc. to worry about punishment; we,as officials, just call the rules that we have available. In this case <b>you</b> are making yourself the judge, jury and executioner, and you are doing so with the only evidence available being 10 seconds of film from a terrible angle and a bunch of conflicting hearsay.

So help me out. Is an unsporting act different from an unsporting foul?

JR - Sorry, when I said "punishing a player", I just meant that by tossing him from the game, due to the change from a personal foul to a fragrant foul was punishing the kid for how the other player chose to respond.

So how do you get around this? Fighting = flagrant act. A flagrant foul is either of violent or savage in nature. So how would an elbow/shove qualify? Intentional, yes, I can live with that, but I think you and Chuck have elevated this 'act' beyond intentional to flagrant. True?

JR - I know you've re-iterated more than once that the Lawrence kid admitted to previously elbowing the Wichita kid coming up the court. Fine, not arguement there. But when he says that, does he mean he nudged him with his elbow, or did he mean he got in a full shot to the ribs?? I have no clue. All I know is that I've heard many 12-14 year old kids say they've aced a test, but in actuality they only got an 80%. So when kids say something to me, I've learned to ask more questions and only then do I get the "real" picture.

Secondly, why did he elbow the Wichita kid? Maybe it was in retaliation from the Wichita kid reaching in/grabbing his arm on that rebound?? Possible.....

If a push took place and a fight resulted afterwards, then you can eject the guy who made the push as well. You do not even need a push or contact, it could be words that instigated the fight, and you must eject the instigator.

Peace

So I guess then it would behoove a coach to instruct his players to make a non-contact swing/punch if they get fouled hard by the other team's leading scorer. That would be a quick, legal way of getting the other team's best player out of the game!!

1) Basically the same with different verbiage.

2) IU, you're looking at the wrong rule. Fighting <b>is</b> a flagrant act, but it doesn't necessarily have to include a violent or savage act though. The rules say different. Chuck and I are both using NFHS rule 4-18-<b>FIGHTING</b>. The NCAA rule is basically the same. Those rules say that instigating a fight is a flagrant act that is considered as a fighting foul, even though the act of instigation may have involved little or no actual physical contact.

3) IU, I can't answer any of those questions without guessing, and from a referee's standpoint, we shouldn't really ever be guessing. The only </b>facts</b> that I'm aware of are that the Lawrence kid admitted to previous elbows(which don't show on the tape as far as I can see because of the camera angle), and that the Lawrence kid pushed the Wichita kid and then immediately got thrown-down and beat down. The elbows really don't figure in the final call anyway; the officials must have missed them as they were not called. So.....as an official, you have to rule on the push followed by a beating. Imo the push was deliberate and directly instigated the fight, and the NFHS and NCAA rules that I cited now become the pertinent and applicable rules to be used. Others don't agree that the push instigated the fight. Well, I don't agree with them either but they're certainly entitled to their (wrong:) ) opinion.

It would seem to me maybe so, but wouldn't the sanctioning body of whatever league/association that has authority on the team have a problem with a team that has gotten into alot of fights in one season or portion of one season?

I think the punishment of not being allowed to participate in the future (or in postseason play, etc...) would outweigh the advantage of trading the other team’s best player for your goon.

But that coach wouldn't be the first coach to try to get an advantage through that or a similar method.

IUgrad92,

It seems to me you are just trying to justify your position by coming up with whatever scenario fits your point of view. The bottom line is we had two players participated in what turned into a fight. Just because one kid got the worst of the fight does not absolve him from any responsibility or punishment. If he threw and elbow and he got punched in the face, he played a part in that action that resulted in a fight. Now if the officials did not see the elbow that is a different story. If the officials saw the elbow (first action), then you should by rule dump both players. You do not have to agree, but those are the interpretations I have seen over the years. Since this was HS, I can tell you the NF takes this position across the board in other sports that any provocation of a fight is apart of that fight. Just because you get your *** kicked does not eliminate your responsibility from further action taken against you. Maybe this is why there were no charges filed. There probably was more to this situation that meets the eye. Also you cannot just judge this situation by only a small part of the tape. There probably were other things we did not see or know about the incident.

Peace

That's 100% correct. Great way to put it.

No Camron, you are misunderstanding me completely and are also mis-interpreting what I've been saying. I'm saying that if a player commits an intentional foul such as a deliberate two-handed push, and that deliberate, unsporting act causes another player to react by fighting, then the first player caused the fight, and by rule should be penalized for fighting.

I'm not talking about grabbing shirts like IU said, or sticking a knee out- <b>unless</b> an official thought the knee <b>was</b> deliberately being used to injure an opponent. I sureasheck <b>am</b> considering the nature of the first contact too. The first contact- the deliberate push- caused the fight imo. And that deliberate push by the Lawrence player showed a lack of self-control on his part also imo. And the succeeding excessive reaction has got nothing to do with us as officials either. In the video, if the Wichita player hadda just taken a swing back at the Lawrence kid and missed him completely, it would have been exactly the same call as him kicking the living snot out of the kid, which is what he did. Either way, it's still a fight with flagrant fouls being issued to each participant. It's someone else's job -league, police, etc.- to decide later if the retaliation was excessive, not ours.

It's a judgement call. Any official who's got some spit built up in his whistle, imo, knows the difference between a player fouling an opponent and a player cheap-shotting an opponent. Deliberate pushes, knees, etc. are cheap shots, and if the cheap shot leads directly to a fight, the rules tell us to penalize both players equally. We don't penalize one player more harshly because he might be stronger or a better fighter.

I'm having trouble understandng what the disagreement is here.

Clearly, if in your judgement an action by A1 instigates a fighting response from B1 then both players are guilty of fighting. The instigation could be words or actions. That is the rule.

And as Rut said, getting your azz kicked does not mean you didn't fight.

Just means you didn't fight well.

(And I'm tempted to add if you don't fight well & get your azz kicked maybe there's a lesson to be learned, but I wouldn't want to stir anyone up with such an insensitive comment...)

But is is NOT the rule. An actoin by A1 causing B1 to fight is not necessarily a fight. Perhaps B1 got tired of being fouled...simple, plain, fouls. B1 can not take offense, start a fight, and get A1 tossed too just becasue B1 responds by fighting.

The rule is that if A1 either throws a punch/kick/etc. or commits an unsporting act (defined in the rulebook as a non-contact foul) and B1 responds by fighting, then A1 is fighting. It doesn't NOT say that if A1 commits a foul and B1 responds by fighting that A1 has fought.

Uhhh....Camron...?

Where did I say that A1 commits a foul?

All I said was "if in your judgement an action by A1 instigates a fighting response from B1 then both players are guilty of fighting".

Which I believe agrees with your post 137%. And BTW, my response to A1 getting tired of being fouled is for A1 to tell his coach he needs to get some bench time. IOW I don't care that A1 thinks he's getting fouled too much. Not my concern. But I digress.

Did Chuck catch this one???


CITED

You said "an action"....a very broad term. That could easily be a foul.

Well, I did also say "in your judgement", so just how "easily" any action is judged to instigate a fight is very much dependant on, well, your judgement.

If you think a foul could "easily" lead to a fight then I'm not going to argue your judgement or experience. Just don't expect me to agree with you.

We as refs need to be careful too. take a look.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3AG39NQP8yc&search=referee