Fight during game

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Well, that's kinda interesting since the Lawrence kid already admitted in the one story posted that he elbowed the other kid on the way up the court.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/14892378.htm

Quote "I think I elbowed him in the chest as we were running down the court...." Unquote.

Sure, how does that conflict with what I said. The elbow/push just preceeded the beating and was something often seen in basketball...derserving of a quick whistle....but nothing more than a personal foul. You can't turn any personal foul that the opponent takes offense to into a T just becasue they retaliate.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sure, how does that conflict with what I said. The elbow/push just preceeded the beating and was something often seen in basketball...derserving of a quick whistle....but nothing more than a personal foul. You can't turn any personal foul that the opponent takes offense to into a T just becasue they retaliate.

It conflicts because you said that there was NO elbow, Camron. You said "taken alone....without prior incident". There was at least one prior elbowing incident that the Lawrence player admitted to though, and the opposing coach alleged that there were more elbows involved also. The kid admitted to an elbow followed by the push. Two distinct and separate acts. And why can't I turn an act that an opponent retaliates to into a fight btw? NFHS rule 4-18-2 sureasheck says that I can. Aamof that rule says that is the proper and correct call-"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". Imo a deliberate push sureasheck could be interpreted as an unsporting act if that deliberate push was immediately followed by a player retaliating by fighting. I'm also not changing any personal foul into a "T" either. With the fighting retaliation, I'm changing an intentional personal foul(the deliberate push without retaliation) into a flagrant personal foul for fighting when there was retaliation. NCAA rule 4-23-3(b) basically says the exact same thing as the FED rule too.

If a player swings at another player and misses, and the second player retaliates by swinging and knocking the first kid cold, breaking his nose and jaw at the same time, would you issue different fouls?

We're just gonna have to disagree on this one.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It conflicts because you said that there was NO elbow, Camron. You said "taken alone....without prior incident". There was at least one prior elbowing incident that the Lawrence player admitted to though, and the opposing coach alleged that there were more elbows involved also. The kid admitted to an elbow followed by the push. Two distinct and separate acts.

I saw the elbow/push as one action...made contact with the elbow/forearm and ended the contact by pushing away with the forarm. The action on the rebound appeared to not involve contact at all. There was no other apparrent contact on the video. The elbow/push was all in the same sequence, not seperate infractions.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And why can't I turn an act that an opponent retaliates to into a fight btw? NFHS rule 4-18-2 sureasheck says that I can. Aamof that rule says that is the proper and correct call-"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". Imo a deliberate push sureasheck could be interpreted as an unsporting act if that deliberate push was immediately followed by a player retaliating by fighting. I'm also not changing any personal foul into a "T" either. With the fighting retaliation, I'm changing an intentional personal foul(the deliberate push without retaliation) into a flagrant personal foul for fighting when there was retaliation. NCAA rule 4-23-3(b) basically says the exact same thing as the FED rule too.

If it had happened alone, would you have called it a fight? I doubt it....intentional (by your own statement), but not a fight.

If it had happened alone, without retaliation, would you (could you) have called a T? No. By your assertions in prior posts, live ball contact can only be a personal foul, not a technical.

The fighting rule says that unsporting acts can be considered fighting if they lead to a fight. However, unsporting acts are, by definition, non-contact technical fouls. That means that the actions of the elbow/push can not be an unsporting act/foul. Therefore, it can't be fighting under the retaliation clause.

The only way you can peg the elbow/push as fighting is if you consider it a fighting act by itself. Doing so means that any hard foul would become fighting if the fouled player takes offense.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

If a player swings at another player and misses, and the second player retaliates by swinging and knocking the first kid cold, breaking his nose and jaw at the same time, would you issue different fouls?

Both get charged with fighting. Attempting to strike a player with a fist is far different than a elbow/push to the torso.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

We're just gonna have to disagree on this one.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

1) I saw the elbow/push as one action...made contact with the elbow/forearm and ended the contact by pushing away with the forarm. The action on the rebound appeared to not involve contact at all. There was no other apparrent contact on the video. The elbow/push was all in the same sequence, not seperate infractions.

2) If it had happened alone, would you have called it a fight? I doubt it....intentional (by your own statement), but not a fight.

3) If it had happened alone, without retaliation, would you (could you) have called a T? No. By your assertions in prior posts, live ball contact can only be a personal foul, not a technical.

4) The fighting rule says that unsporting acts can be considered fighting if they lead to a fight. However, unsporting acts are, by definition, non-contact technical fouls. That means that the actions of the elbow/push can not be an unsporting act/foul. Therefore, it can't be fighting under the retaliation clause.

5) The only way you can peg the elbow/push as fighting is if you consider it a fighting act by itself. Doing so means that any hard foul would become fighting if the fouled player takes offense.

6) Both get charged with fighting. Attempting to strike a player with a fist is far different than a elbow/push to the torso.

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 before he pushed him. I really don't care what you think you're seeing on the video. The kid flat out admitted throwing an elbow before 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- Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live". 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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Or are you saying that you think that kicking or kneeing an opponent without the ball isn't an unsporting act?

Flagrant, yes...unsporting, no.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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- Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live". Whatever point you're trying to make here isn't covered by any rule that I'm aware of.

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.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The retaliation clause is there to cover someone provoking a fight with words or gestures....a noncontact action that causes 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 "regardless of whether contact is made"?

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

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 "regardless of whether contact is made"?

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.

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 "regardless of whether contact is made"?

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

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

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.