JR: You sited earlier that

"Daddy might be taking a chance with what he's doing now though. I ain't a prosecutor (even though I watched the OJ trial.... man, that Greta van Sustern broad is ogggglly) but I think that, with the provocation, you either gotta charge both of 'em or fuggedaboutit completely. Kinda looks like they're trying to forget about it."[/QUOTE]

Dude, it seems like you brought up the racial issue first. Of all trails in this world, you picked and sited OJ... coincidently another "BLACK VS. WHITE" kinda con·tro·ver·sial drama..... Perhaps ask yourself why of all cases you site OJ?? No need to explain cause i can care less...

-M

I just made a joke about being Mr. Spelling Guy and now I'm faced with this!! I'm going to let it pass, though, as JR will have bigger issues to bring up.

Maybe he "sited" the OJ "trail" because that's when Greta van Ogggly came to prominence?

1) Camron, didn't you read the link I posted to Kansas.com? The Coulter kid admitted in that story to elbowing the other kid <b>before</b> he pushed him. I really don't care what you <b>think</b> you're seeing on the video. The kid flat out admitted throwing an elbow <b>before</b> his push. End of story.

2) I've already posted multi-times that if the push happened alone, I would call an intentional personal foul. That's my own personal judgement after viewing the push.

3) Agree and I've already posted to that effect. That's an intentional personal foul per existing rules. Have you got a rule that you can cite that states differently?

4) Could you please cite a rules definition that says unsporting acts are by definition non-contact technical fouls? I'm certainly not aware of anything in the rules that says that. Read NFHS rule 4-19-4. It completely contradicts that statement. Or are you saying that you think that kicking or kneeing an opponent without the ball isn't an unsporting act? Also see casebook play 10.4.5SitA- that talks about a fight. Note that both players charged with fighting in that case play received flagrant personal fouls. And you are also saying that it then can't be fighting under the retaliation clause? You're kidding, right? To have fighting, it doesn't matter whether the ball is live or dead. Says so right in R4-18- <i>Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live"</i>. Whatever point you're trying to make here isn't covered by any rule that I'm aware of.

5) Yup, if you consider that hard foul as instigating a fight, it suresheck does become fighting if the person that was fouled retaliated by fighting. Says so right in NFHS 4-18-2 and NCAA 4-23-3(b). Sure it's a judgement call, but I don't believe in letting a kid that started a fight just skate because he happened to get the sh!t kicked out of him.

6) I disagree vehemently. Attempting to strike somebody with a fist is no different at all, by the rules that I've cited, than pushing somebody if both acts lead directly to a fight breaking out.

<font size = +7>Again, exactly what does the race of the players have to do with this incident?</font>

Please be very specific!

Can we just egg you?

The censor was stunned and dazed by the image JR's description painted in his head. By the time he recovered, the post had hit the wire. I can't say that it wouldn't have happened to me if I were in his place.

See 4-19-14: An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical or dishonorable conduct.

4-19-4, as you reference, is defining a flagrant foul (personal or technical), not an unsporting foul.

Flagrant, yes...unsporting, no.

That backs up my claim...they got flagrant personal fouls, not an unsporting (technical noncontact) foul.

The retaliation clause is there to cover someone provoking a fight with words or gestures....a noncontact action that causes a fight..

True, the ball can be live or dead. But retaliation to an foul that was not considered a fighting action on it's own doesn't make the original foul a fight.

4-28-2 doesn't say that at all. It say that an unsporting act (defined in 4-19-14) can be considered fighting if it leads to a fight. It says NOTHING about a personal foul morphing into fighting if the fouled player takes offense by fighting. If that push/elbow was so vicious or aggressive that it could be considered fighting, the orignal foul should be a flagrant personal foul to begin with....it wasn't. The first player actually has to do more then push/elbow another player during a live ball for it to be a fight.

You must have a lot of ejections if you consider an elbow and push to be a fight.

Camron, I think that you really, really should talk to a rules interpreter out there about your premise. The above pretty much sums up where you're coming from, and it's so far wrong, it's ridiculous. If it were true, why would 4-18-1 contain the words <i>"regardless of whether contact is made"</i>?

I ain't gonna convince you- fer sure- so we're just gonna haveta disagree.

Btw, after viewing that video, what would you call?

In 4-18-1, it is an attempt to punch, strike, etc. to cause harm and will be fighting either way...contact or not. It's apples and oranges.

Based on the video, I'd have an intentional foul on one and flagrant on the other.

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