Fight during game
 

I saw a commercial for the nightly news while watching a show on my DVR. There was a fight in a game. Well, it wasn't much of a fight - one player got beat pretty bad. One of my friends from Vegas saw it this morning and told me it would probably be national news.

Does anyone know if this clip has made it to the internet yet and have a link?

Hey Tom...wtf are you talking about?

:confused:

Geeze, Dan, this was all over ESPN this morning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bktW3...search=justind

That's a fight??

Looks like he's giving him noogies.

foxnews has the video of the real fight on its website.

Whoa.

THAT'S a fight!

Hard to know what led up to it, but the white kid definitely shoved the black kid first and then the black kid retaliated. He got his money's worth too. That's some ugly video.

That's not a fight, that is a cheap-a$$ attack by a kid that doesn't have the sac to come at someone head on.

The precedent was set in South Dakota, I wouldn't be surprised to see charges filed.

The other kid shoved him first. It wasn't a sneak attack, it was a retaliation. If the first kid didn't expect to be hit back, then he's stupid, too. That doesn't make either kid right; I just don't think it was "cheap".

Got a link?

Chuck--Does this include the four full-throttle punches to the head of an unconcsious person lying on the floor? Is that "retaliation" too?

After finally seeing it, thanks to BayStateRef, I gotta agree with you. That certainly wasn't what could be called an "unprovoked attack" imo either. That doesn't justify the beatdown, but you also don't know if there was a history there or if something happened between those two previously in that game either. You can't go by the story from one side only.

Both refs did the right thing too imo. Someone got there off the bench real quick and both refs stood back and watched.

Now.....what's your call as an official?

Personally, I think I'd call that a "fight" and give both players flagrant personal fouls for fighting.

NFHS rule 4-18-2 - "Fighting includes....an attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act towards an opponent that causes an opponent to retaliate". NCAA rule 4-23-3(b) basically uses the same language.

Write 'er up <b>real</b> good, and let whoever game management was on that game deal with the fall-out.

Jmo....

From the other coach:

Kris Maples coaches the Wichita Youth Basketball league team that squared off against a team of 14-year-olds from Lawrence March 26th.

After being shoved, one of Maples' players clotheslined and then pummeled a player from the Lawrence team. Home video caught it all on tape.

Maples says his player was only responding to several elbows the Lawrence player had thrown during the course of the game.

http://209.248.155.133/fox/fullstory.asp?id=14210

What I saw was an unprovoked shove in the back during a drive to the basket. This kid who got pummelled is nothing but a cheap shot artist. He just happened to cheap shot the wrong guy. I like to think he's learned a lesson, but now his daddy is dragging him around crying to the press that he's an innocent victim.

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.

Rec league basketball......:rolleyes:

- Time for the Yankees......my tv is coal-fired. Takes a while to warm up.

That's just great. Any kid, with your philosophy, is going to feel retaliating in this fashion is justified...........if he feels he took a "cheap shot", that is.

What the Lawrence kid was wrong, what the Wichita kid did was worse. And who typically gets caught in retaliation scenarios??? There better be charges filed.

If the Wichita kid was getting elbowed through the coarse of the game, then he should have been asking the officials to watch for it, or at least tell his coach and let the coach talk to the officials about it.

This happened on a basketball court Dan, not some back alley.

I'd find it hard to believe that the kid in the dark jersey attacked the kid in the white jersey like that over just that one shove. Perhaps he did, but since the entire game is on tape, you'd have to prove it for me to believe it.

And since that is what a jury (or judge in the case of a juvenile charge in most states) would be asked to do. And since it doesn't appear the prosecutor wants to move forward. I'd guess the rest of the tape either conveniently doesn't exist, or doesn't paint the same picture as this dad would like you to believe.

There is one universal truth, prosecutors like to win cases especially easy ones that are (or could be) high profile. Wins, especially ones that everyone knows about, are good for career advancement in the criminal law profession.

If this case is as open and shut as that footage and that dad would have you believe, I'd guess that charges would be brought. The fact that they haven't been, would make me think otherwise. But like I said perhaps I'm wrong. Let’s see the parts of the tape that the other side would like us to see as well.

It's making no excuses for the kid beating the living crap out of the other kid. It clearly is not the right thing to do, however it may not be a criminal act either.

Does the law care where it happened when it comes to the question of guilt in a court room?

I knew I'd have to explain this to somebody..........

Have you heard the term "Back alley abortion"?? My point was, the back alley is a place not controlled, just about anything can and does happen. I don't believe it is the same notion for a basketball court. The events there ARE controlled, or should be anyway. It should be held to a higher regard.

I'm sorry, but to say that hopefully this kid learned a lesson after getting pummelled while being unconscious, to me, is appalling.

I should hope it wouldn't matter where a crime is committed. That would be a very scary thing as well.

Maybe the prosecutor doesn't want to proceed because he/she feels like votes might be lost in the next election. Who knows................

I got your point.

But I was pointing out that it seems from your comment that you have moved right past the guilt portion of the trial. Right on to the penalty phase. Where you argue the aggravating factors like, it happened at a school, during a controlled event, etc...

I'm not saying that you have already determined the kid’s guilt.

I'm just saying based on that comment it seemed like you had seen 10 seconds of evidence, heard maybe 1 minute of "testimony" from the victim and the victim's dad. And from that had determined guilt.

You haven't heard the defense, which everyone is entitled to. Don't rush to judgment. If you have already, take a few steps back.

Not trying to jump on you or argue. I respect everyone's opinions.

So why wasn't a foul called if it was such a blatent shove in the back?

I thought the same thing. I also wonder what the lead was thinking. He didn't move in very quickly. Not sure what he'd do when he got there but he should at least get there and better be blasting his whistle.

I think if the shove was called with a hard close in, maybe the fight doesn't happen.

I don't think anybody has said that the retaliation was justified. I don't think Dan implied that when he said that the Lawrence hopefully learned a lesson. I hope the kid learned a lesson, too. The Wichita kid will hopefully learn a different lesson. That doesn't "justify" either kid's actions.

I'm not sure anybody would disagree with you, or has disagreed with you on that point.

If the game was coarse, the officials probably should've given T's for profanity. If the court was coarse, maybe it needs to be sanded. If he was getting elbowed through the course of the game, however, I agree that he should've let the refs handle it. Just a thought from your annoying Mr. Spelling Guy. :)

If you look closely at the last video replay, it looks like both players are coming up court leaning on each other. The Lawrence player then pushes the other player off of him. It doesn't look like he shoved him without provocation.

Agree. Imo the Lawrence player instigated the incident with the shove. Another angle might be helpful, but we ain't gonna get that.

OK, the kit took a major beat down and that shouldn't have happened. There is no way I would jump to a conclusion that this other player just did this out of the blue. Even the kid gave himself away when he talked to the reporter: "I think I elbowed him in the chest after a rebound", or something like that. Yeah, right! If I wanted to jump to a conclusion I would say that the lawyer could take the film sent by the dad, the interview and a tape of the whole game (if one exists) and ask the father, "Are you sure you want us to proceed?" Something could be fishy about this "unprovoked attack."

Tom, I know the Lawrence player was wrong but these things do happen "in the heat of battle" as you know. But, due to the grossly excessive force used by the Wichita player, I think something should be done for him before this really becomes a problem. Maybe a good anger management class and some community service would save this kid from becoming another Marvin Barnes when he grows up. For those of you not familiar with that incident, (I'm a PC grad so I know), after a few elbows and shoving occurred during a scrimmage, Barnes went back to his room after the scrimmage and got a tire iron and attacked his fellow teammate in the cafeteria. Different situation I know , but if this kid's behavior goes unchecked it might very well lead to the same thing.

I gotta say, in terms of critical thinking skills I'm doubting you got your money's worth in that IU degree. Hopefully it's not too late to get a refund.

Or maybe whatever you learned there has been forgotten.

Dan, what ARE you saying?

Funny, Dan. Instead of clarifying what you've previously said, "I hope the kid learned his lesson", "The kid is a cheap shot artist"... which both I pretty much disagree with, you resort to personal attacks.

How do you know this kid is a cheap shot artist? What qualifies to be as such? One push in the back, two times, three?

Are you saying now that players should take it upon themselves to teach players from the other team a lesson if they feel justified??

Someone giving a shove to another player is something that we've all seen and dealt with more than once during a game. How may officials have had to deal with a player clothes-lining another player to the point of unconsciousness and then beat him on the back of his head while he's out cold on the court?? Huh, how many?? That kind of action/retaliation is way way way over the line. And all you can say Dan, is that hopefully the kid learned his lesson. Man, that sure takes a college degree to make that kind of statement.

This was not a 'fight', as that takes two people. I would guarantee that any NBA player that did this exact same thing would be fined thousands of dollars and suspended for a number of games. How do I know that? Because players have been suspended and fined for much less.

Dan, here's a hint. Stick to the facts, stick to your comments, defend them, whatever. Just don't resort to personal attacks. It doesn't make you look good, bro :-)

Chuck, Just wanted to let you know that I've scanned this post 5 times for mis-spellings and/or using a word in the wrong context. I didn't find any, so rest easy. It sure has got to be a burden to be you, to have made thousands of posts and to have never made a typo or mis-used a word. Keep the streak going!!! And second, this kid did not deserve to be taught a lesson in this fashion. That's what the officials and coaches are there for.

Are you saying that the Lawrence player didn't instigate that mess with that shove?

Let's grant everything--let's assume the kid who got pummeled did all kinds of terrible stuff--elbowing, name-calling, shoving, or worse. Let's assume the kid who did the pummeling did nothing in the lead-up.

Does ANYTHING justify four punches to the head of an unconscious person? Ever? Nobody who's coming to the defense of the attacker has answered that to my satisfaction.

Yes, we don't know started it. Yes, a more carefully-officiated game could have prevented this whole thing. But that's not what's at issue here. No matter who the instigator was (and I agree that we don't have enough information to tell), once you've got a defenseless unconscious kid on the ground, only a really, really dangerous human being would punch him four times. Anger management is in order...or maybe juvie. How does this attacker react if one of us accidentally cuts him off on the highway?

In spite of my earlier question to this effect, nobody has convinced me otherwise. It is not the cause of the attack that's disturbing here--it's the severity of it. In this conversation, that issue has been overlooked. So I'll put it back up at center focus:

Does anybody want to sugggest that repeated punches to the face of a prone, unconscious person are defensible or reasonable under any circumstances?

1) Well, I don't think most posters- including Dan_Ref- are really trying to justify anything. They're just saying that the Lawrence kid instigated this mess with his shove. The other kid retaliated to that instigation. Couldn't be clearer and simpler from the posted video imo.

2) Sorry, but also imo both of those statements are absolutely ridiculous. The only real evidence that we have is the video, unless you've got some other evidence that we aren't privy to. That video clearly shows the Lawrence kid starting the fracas with his push. Or are you saying that there <b>wasn't</b> a push? On your other statement, I'd also like to know how you <b>know</b> that the officials are partially to blame also. Did you see anything else but the video posted at the start of this thread? Were you at this game? Could you please give us some explicit examples of exactly where the officials failed to keep control of this game? I eagerly await your enlightment. Personally, I couldn't ever say anything like that because all I've seen is a few seconds of a video clip. Exactly how could they have officiated this game more carefully?

Prediction- you'll never see charges in this case unless <b>both</b> kids are charged. That was <b>not</b> an unprovoked attack. Note that certainly doesn't exonerate the Wichita kid; both kids are equally to blame imo. Trying to hold the Lawrence kid blameless though is just ridiculous.

Note- that's my opinion. Nobody is gonna answer anything to your satisfaction either obviously; your opinion is completely different. We're just gonna haveta disagree on this one.

Life is complicated. If you are looking for a simple solution for a complicated issue you are fooling yourself. The kid got hit repeatedly in the face and the kid that was getting hit probably started it to some extent. Does one action justify the other? I really do not think that is the point. The point is something got out of hand and it is an unfortunate issue. I was not there, so it is hard for me to say what the kid should have done or not done in that situation. I think so many times we want to come to a "one size fits all" solution or opinion on these kinds of issues.

Peace

:confused: What do you base this expert opinion on?

I feel that too many here have lost sight that this is a basketball game, played with officials, within a defined set of rules....which carry specific penalties.

If the official sees the first push and determines it intentional...the penalty is well prescribed by rule. We can expect players to get "upset" and push, elbow, shove, even grab. We do not -- and cannot -- expect players to grab someone around the neck, throw them to the ground and then pound them in the face with a fist. I am embarrassed that anyone here suggests in any way that is acceptable action on a basketball court, played in a game with officials.

So what if the Lawrence kid "started it" with a shove. The other player's actions are a disgrace and a crime.

Here's a hint, bro - you're boring us.

I'm saying we don't know what happened in the entire game leading up to the one trip down the floor we saw. I agree--the only evidence we have is the video. I don't think this kind of thing happens as a result of one trip down the floor. It's certainly possible the attacker actually "instigated" the previous trip down the floor, or the one before that, or in the first quarter. You're right...we don't know. So we can't for sure say the Lawrence kid was the instigator without having been there...for the very reasons you give (there's evidence we're not privy to).

That's fair enough...I wasn't there. But think about a game you've officiated or seen where there has been a fight. (I've had one in my seven years.) It is the extreme exception for something like this to spring up out of the blue. In the game I officiated with a fight, I know there were things my partner and I could have done differently to prevent the swings from starting...in this game, it was ugly picks. If I call them, is there a fight? I doubt it. Maybe, though. Either way, I cannot wash my hands of my responsibility.

I wasn't at this game, but I'm willing to bet that it's a similar case, and if the officials are anything like me, I bet they feel awful about it. There's no way to prove it, as we agree, but I'd bet a C-note this fracas could have been prevented with tighter officiating earlier. At the very least, an official could have caught the Lawrence push, tooted the whistle repeatedly, and closed in before the Wichita kid has a chance to swing. I know...hindsight is 20/20.

It's not my intention to slam or attack the officials here, or anywhere, ever. (After all, there but for the grace of God go any of us...if we haven't been there already.) But I don't think it's an attack to observe that this situation likely could have been avoided...to try to learn from it.

I haven't done that. However...and this point keeps getting lost...punching an unconscious kid is four times never justified. I don't care what the kid did to bring on the first punch...when he's out cold, the fight ends. Anyone who punches an unconscious person in the face four times has serious problems. He may have had a push coming, or even a punch. But not once he's unconscious.

And we will. I appreciate your civility.

[QUOTE=BayStateRef] I am embarrassed that anyone here suggests in any way that is acceptable action on a basketball court, played in a game with officials.
QUOTE]

Uhmmm...just wondering who you think suggested it was "acceptable". Several have said that the Lawrence kid started it with the shove, but I didn't read anyone saying it was accdeptable...

Did the shove lead to the punches? Yes...Was the beatdown deserved - no. As someone else said, once the Lawrence kid was unconscious, the Wichita kid should have stopped. He didn't - and so if any charges are filed, that will be the deciding factor...and if no charges are filed, it will make for one heckuva civil case!

1) Yup, and it looks like you've forgotten that too and you're trying to impose your own penalties, with more severe action required on one player. Sorry, but that ain't our job. Any post-game action belongs to the league these kids played in and the prosecutor looking at the fight. All the officials do is decide the penalties for the fight that occurred, and afaik none of us are privy to what they actually called and their post-game report. I already stated what my call would be after looking at the video. What would <b>you</b> call as an official?

2) Yup, and I posted the rules. If it's a fight provoked by a push, both players should receive flagrant personal fouls for fighting. Any further action beyond that is the responsibility of the league and the police. Are you saying that the Lawrence player shouldn't receive that penalty?

3) Not one poster to date has said that the actions of the Wichita player were acceptable . Not one! If you think differently, please post an example.

4) "So what if the Lawrence player started it with a shove"?- Um, maybe because if the Lawrence player hadn't have started it with a shove, there might not have been a fight in the first place? Did you ever think of that? Sorry, but that statement is absolutely ridiculous imo.

Exactly.....that was my point......if you <b>don't</b> know all of the details, don't speculate. The officials in this game deserve the benefit of any doubt imo.

The follow-up from the Wichita coach and the league:

The player has not played for Showtime since. Maples {Wichita coach] said he suspended him for two tournaments and that he is out of town for the summer.

Mid America Youth Basketball president Greg Raleigh suspended the player from MAYB tournaments and suspended the team for the remainder of the spring season, which ended May 7.

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

Here is a link with video that starts a few seconds earlier -- when the Lawrence team gets the ball after a turnover under the other team's basket.

http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/3221576.html

We're beating up this kid pretty good for his unjustifiable behavior, about his serious problems, about how he needs anger management, about how he's capable of becoming a road rage menace (typical boogie-man bull**** intended to imply that any one of us could be his next victim) all because we assume he knew the kid was unconscious and continued beating him anyway. How sure are you that he knew? Have you interviewed the kid? Have you read the reports of those that did? Do you have anything more conclusive to go on than the "victim's" side of the story and that he looks unconscious in the video? The whole incident took, what? ... 5 seconds? During the entire fight was there ever a moment when the kid stopped swinging long enough to assess the state of his opponent? Given the adrenaline that would be flowing, is there any reasonable expectation that such a thought would even occur to him during this short time?

I'm hearing an awful lot of smugly self-assured, idealistic, all-inclusive and very judgemental statements about this kid from people who weren't there, don't know him, and have only seen about 10 seconds of video and heard one side of the story. One side of the story, I might add, that came from the guy who lost the fight, has an axe to grind, and whose role in the incident is suspect. I don't know why charges were never brought, but I'm going to have to assume that it's because the actual facts don't support it.

Reread that. You seem to think that under some circumstances--for instance, if your adrenaline is really cooking, or you haven't taken the time to figure out that your victim is unconscious because punching the kid so thoroughly and effectively--that it's acceptable or reasonable to whale on a kid you've already knocked out.

I disagree. And that's the way it's going to stay.

Axe to grind, huh. Have you ever been assaulted or had a friend assaulted? Let's get one thing straight. The tape clearly shows that: (1) The Lawrence kid pushed the Wichita kid.(And I don't think the Lawrence kid pushed for no reason; the tape shows both players leaning on each other as they are coming up the court so it was more a case of "get off of me") (2) In response, the Wichita kid pummelled the Lawrence kid with unnecessary excessive force not letting up until the coaches pulled him off of the Lawrence player. One has to wonder what would have happened if the caoches had not intervened.

Thanks for the follow-up info. As usual, the story from the other side is just a little different:

<i>"Coulter provoked the fight."

"He threw an elbow to my player's head and another to the back of his jaw. You see that if you watch the whole video and not just clips. He provoked it."

"He hit my guy first".

"I think I elbowed him in the chest when we were running down the floor, and he pushed me. So I pushed him back..."

"You know what I haven't heard yet? An apology from the other player. I've never heard him apologize for starting this."</i>


One organization suspended their kid for his involvement in this incident. The other organization did....what?

Thanks again for providing a counterpoint.

Reread it yourself. Once again you've got the cart pulling the horse. You cry about how wrong it is that the kid would blatantly "whale on a kid you've already knocked out." You assume that the kid knew the other guy was unconscious. And it's by no means a good assumption.

Once again emotion is driving people's response on this. That is an excellent question! What would have happened if it weren't for the coaches? You know, like the Lawrence kid's dad. When you hear out both sides, both sides say that there was at least one elbow thrown by the Lawrence kid. Was there just one elbow or multiple, incidental or intentional? We don't know. The video is shocking, to be sure. But we've only been shown about 10 seconds of it. We cant' say with any certainty what led to the fight. But we do know that fights don't generally materialize from nothing. So what really happened? We don't know.

But if the Lawrence kid is out there throwing elbows, who taught him that? Who coached that? Who allowed allowed one of his players to do it? Could it be Dad/coach? And if that is true (again, we don't know), are either of them likely to fess up to their role in what happened? Or are they more likely to go to the press with 10 seconds of shocking video and a carefully excised story because they don't think they got treated fairly by the DA?

No matter how emotional this story makes you, there are enough questions that remain unanswered and enough plausible allegations by the Witchita coach that one cannot reasonably take the Lawrence kid and his dad entirely at face value. The fact is they have an axe to grind. And that has nothing to do with whether I, or a friend has ever been assaulted.

Like I said before, after reviewing the original complaint, the prosecutor didn't see fit to bring charges. Why not? Perhaps because the actual facts do not present nearly as clear and compelling a case as this little PR stunt would have us believe.

my view of the tape
 

I'm not justifying anyone's actions. But just to make sure I saw this correctly on the Kansas television station news footage.

After the Lawrence kid (A1) secures a loose ball he throws an intentional elbow that appears to connect to Wichata kid's (B1) mid-section. B1 then shadows A1 the length of the court with some sort of physical and verbal interaction occurring, which then leads to A1 forcefully shoving B1. B1 retaliates with a clothesline and then 4 or 5 punches while A1 is prone.

Very true. Why would that kid know the other guy [who 1) was not moving, 2) not fighting back, and 3) not defending himself] was unconscious??

My answer.....because this is a kid who severely snapped and has some serious anger issues.

Chuck - I've double-checked this post for mis-spellings as well, none found. Rest easy.

Yes, the Lawrence player shoved the guy. Similar situation that I've had many times over the years. You catch most of them and it ends there, some you miss and the player comes and talks to you about it, or sometimes the players will get face to face. But never, ever, have I seen a kid retaliate in such a violent way. No excuse for violent actions in my book.

That's basically what I saw too. The only comment I have is that the "intentional" adjective on the first elbow is judgement- not that I disagree with your judgement- but everything else is fact. The Lawrence kid did admit to elbowing his opponent though on that sequence.

Nobody said that there was an excuse. It was "retaliation" however.

There's no excuse for elbowing and pushing an opponent like that either. The Lawrence player instigated the incident and has pretty-much admitted to doing so from what I've read. Iow there's two wrongs on the play, not just one, and both wrongs should also be penalized- not just one.

Do tell JR. Let's say your C coming up the court, so you pretty much would be in line with these guys coming up the court. You see all events, the shove and then the clothesline, takedown, and beatdown. Whatcha got?

What if you see the shove, but instead of the violent actions the Wichita player pursues, he gets face to face with the Lawrence kid. Whatcha got now?

Go back and watch the fight closely. Go on, I'll wait. After the Lawrence kid dropped to the floor, the Witchita kid isn't looking at anything but his head, which is moving because of the blows. If you're watching from a distance, the angle the camera gives us, you can plainly see the kid not fighting back. But that's not what the Witchita kid is seeing.

I'm not saying what he did is right, and I'm not excusing it, but everybody who is piling on about how unconscienable his behavior for continuing to pummel an unconscious opponent needs set their outrage aside and actually think about whether the Witchita kid realized the other kid was unconscious or not.

There is no doubt that the kid snapped. But your diagnosis of "serious anger issues" sounds to be based more on your book of "no excuse for violent actions" than from any actual knowledge about this kid. In other words, based on emotion and not actual facts.

Trust me, no emotions here. Fact - Conscious, unconscious, really is not relevant. Fact - I really don't care what that kid was seeing at the time. Fact - This is "You hit me with a stick, so I'll club you with a bat".

IU,

could you please tell us what you would have had when (Lawrence = A1/Wichata = B1):

• A1 secured loose ball then elbowed B1 in the midsection

• B1 got in A1's face on the way up the court

• A1 & B1 kept running their mouths at each on the way up the court

• A1 shoves B1

Those are the 4 events I saw leading up to B1 attacking A1. Two of those events A1 is at fault, one event both are, and one event B1 is at fault. So IMO A1 carries the most weight for "initiating" the incident. This, of course, in no way excuses or absolves B1 excessive response.

But those 4 events immediately preceeding the attack are called mitigating circumstances and I'm sure affect how a criminal prosecutor or civil court judge would view the merits of the case. It's not just a simple case of an unprovoked assault.

Of course, this is all JMO.

Yup, do tell, IU. Do you think that I'd post it if I damnwell didn't believe it?

1) I posted at 4:59pm last Friday - 3 days ago- exactly what I'd call after viewing the video. Nothing I've seen or heard since would come close to making me change my mind. That incident is a fight, by rule, and I'd give <b>both</b> players flagrant personal fouls for fighting. Equal punishment. The Lawrence player instigated the fight and the Wichita player retaliated. I also cited the applicable NFHS and NCAA rules at that time. I'd write it up, and any action beyond the double flagrant foul would be up to the league or the police.

2) Depends on what the Wichita player does when he gets face to face. Any trash-talk/threats/pushes, etc. is gonna earn him a technical foul. If he manages to hold his temper and turn away, then I'll only have one foul- an intentional or flagrant personal foul on the Lawrence player, depending on how bad I interpret the push. Viewing the push on the video alone, if there was no retaliation, I''d probably call an intentional personal foul on the Lawrence player. If the Wichita player then trash talks/threatens/pushes the Lawrence player, I'd have a false double foul-- an intentional personal foul on the Lawrence player followed by a technical foul on the Wichita player.

Now, how about you?

I hate to say this but the RACE OF THE PLAYERS have everything to do with it!!!

It might be one factor, but it does not have to be "THE" factor. I am surprised it took a long time for someone to mention that. I think this was a kid that did something to a kid and did not realize the kid he was messing with. He messed with a kid that was not just going to "let it go" and got his *** kicked.

Peace

Only to the people that want the race of the players to have something to do with it.

-add to that the entire Wichita team was suspended for the remainder of the season. They will probably never get to play in this league again!

And this relates to race....how?:confused:

And how do you know they will probably never play in this league again? Please share your information with us.

Perhaps they should suspend one player vs. the entire team? I actually don't have the information on whether they will ever get to play in the league, that's why I said "probably!" But if I am the commisioner of the league, I would probably not let them play too....

That is a legitimate concern. I would have only considered the racial element to have to do with how the kids reacted to each other. I do find it funny they did not just get rid of the one player or players involved and punish the whole team.

Either way it goes you will never convince JR that race is a factor in anything. He thinks since the Civil Rights movement ended in the 60s (his thinking not many other people) he thinks race is never a factor and you should not mention it. He is not alone, but he feels race should never be mentioned no matter how valid the concern is. Take the advice or leave it.

Peace

Mwanr1 is a classic example of what I call a "pigeon poster." He swoops in unexpected, craps all over everything, and then flies away and leaves us to deal with the mess he made.

So, all-knowing, all-seeing Mwanr1-the-mysterious-and-wise, please explain how "THE RACE OF THE PLAYERS have everything to do with it!!!" [sic] and just how you know this. I await your wisdom and enlightenment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TravelinMan
Axe to grind, huh. Have you ever been assaulted or had a friend assaulted? Let's get one thing straight.

Once again emotion is driving people's response on this.

Back in the Saddle -
Just rejoined discussion. Had to laugh at your comment because people that really know me say I need to show more emotion. I wasn't being emotional at all. MY POINT was that when you are assaulted, it is inaccurate to call it "an axe to grind". And if it ever happens to you, you would know what I mean. It is normal for a person who has been viciously attacked to seek retribution. You seek retribution because of the injustice you have suffered, not for any "axe to grind".

And please...don't categorize people.

Rut, you don't know my thinking. You never will.

I <b>was</b> thinking of you and people like you though when I made my statement above. You didn't let me down.

Again, whatinthehell has this got to do with race?:confused:

And why would you punish one complete team for the actions of one player?

And how about the <b>other</b> team? No punishment required?

I can agree with much of what you have said. It most certainly is understandable, fair and right to seek justice when one has been assaulted. However, if the offended party truly had no axe to grind, the American justice system would look very different. The offended party would testify, the jury would render it's judgement and the judge would pronounce sentence. There would be no need for lawyers, witnesses, cross-examination, evidence. But it is common that the offended party tells only part of the story, embellishes, minimizes their own role, remembers details incorrectly, perceives details based on bias, or flat out alters the truth in an attempt to get retribution. Thus it is always wise to assume that the accuser has an axe of some sort to grind. To assume otherwise is to refuse to critically examine the accuser's statements. While we naturally want to be sympathetic toward the victim, that is an emotional response.

In this case, however, there is more than just the assault, there is also the perceived injustice of the prosecutor not prosecuting the case which is driving this little PR job. That doubles the number of axes in this case.

As for categorizing people, we all do it every day. It's the way our brains work. New information is processed and stored in terms of how it is similar and dissimilar to previously processed information. We categorize to survive. But, with the notable exception of my response to Mwanr1, I have been very careful not to categorize the people in this discussion, merely the responses. And it is accurate to categorize many of the responses in this discussion as emotion-based.

I do not claim to know exactly what you are thinking. I just know anytime someone mentions anything about race you always have something negative to say about it. And as usually you were the first to make that point known.

You have a good evening. ;)

Peace

• A1 secured loose ball then elbowed B1 in the midsection

From the video, I cannot tell 100% that he made contact when he swung around. I don't see B1 bend over as to what a normal reaction would be if he'd taken a hard shot to the midsection. If no contact, then I have an excessive swinging of arms violaton. If any contact, then I have a player control foul.

• B1 got in A1's face on the way up the court

I stop play, get those two together, tell them that nothing extra-curricular is going to happen during this ballgame and that they are being watched. Then I inform my partner to keep an eye on both players.

• A1 & B1 kept running their mouths at each on the way up the court

Depending on the severity of the exchange, I either stop play and give them the "your both being watched" lecture, or a double technical foul.

• A1 shoves B1

I have a personal foul on A1, based on the video and what I saw.

And for the takedown and pummelling, I have a fragrant technical and B1 is gone.

Interestingly, as the players are coming up the court you can see a coach for Team B jumping up and down, wanting either a double dribble or a travel, can't really make it out. I would have thought he'd be complaining about that thrown elbow?? I mean, he was a lot closer to the play than the video camera. Maybe it wasn't as bad as you and some others are making it out to be.......JMO

A common foul on A1 followed by tossing B1? Agree. That call stinks imo too. :)

I too saw the double dribble (didn't notice the coach). The A1 picked up the loose ball, dribble 2-3 times before catching the ball and pivoting (possible elbow), dribbled again, caught the ball, then passed. I don't think the elbows appeared to turn any faster then the body...so no elbow violation. I also agree that it looks like there was no contact on that elbow/pivot based on the reactions of B1. The push by A1 (taken alone...without prior incident) was a garden variety push....worthy of a personal foul..nothing more. B1 whould get a flagrant T for fighting...an expected response would have been a return push, not a beating.

As far as the legal element, A1's push was not criminal. It was a rules violation but not crime. B1's actions passed way beyond a rules violation and certainly appeared to be criminal. The actions appeared unprovoked; you should expect to be pushed in basketball from time to time.

I just started reading this thread tonight and don't really have anything relevant to add to the fight discussion. But this being an officials' forum, after watching and pausing the extended video several times, I do have some comments on the officiating, which curiously, has been mostly ignored.

1. The lead official on the rebound end of the play seems awfully nonchalant. He appears to be looking directly at the elbow swing which doesn't appear to make much contact (if any) and may or may not be an out-of-control elbow swinging violation (again, hard to tell). But the rebounder does appear to double dribble. He definitely dribbles twice. He secures the ball, puts it on the floor, and though it may have been knocked out of his hand by the eventual KO kid (can't tell from the video) he certainly bounces twice in control...looks like a dribble to me. He then again holds the ball, throws the elbows, and then dribbles again before passing off. Looked like a double dribble to me. The official looked unwilling to call anything, which suggests to me (please note the language, "suggests") there had not been a building chain-of-events that led to the eventual fight. In a rec-league game I probably wouldn't have called anything at that point either if the game had been in control. If there had been tempers building I would have called either the elbows or the DD and to quote Barney Fife, "Nip it in the bud".

2. From the video, the new lead official at the fight end of the floor appears to be looking at the push and the KO punch and then looks toward the shot. Even with the one kid on the floor with the other one wailing away, that official appears very hesitant to do anything. He very tentatively and very slowly walks toward the melee, and his partner takes forever to re-appear in the video from the far end of the court. I'm sure most if not all of us have been involved in games as an official when a fight or near-fight breaks out. My first move every single time has been to race to the fight and attempt to break it up...even as a rugby referee, where fights were much more common, I did that. If effective game management and/or pro-active officiating doesn't prevent a fight...and it doesn't always...as the official I feel responsible to take immediate actions to stop it.

3. Finally, this video demonstrates why we as officials have to take every game we call seriously and not just be there for the pay. If you don't want these games, and I respect guys like JRut who no longer take rec games for just this reason, then don't take them. But if you take them, then by-God officiate them properly.

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>"I think I elbowed him in the chest as we were running down the court...."</i> Unquote.

I've been away for a couple days, so I'm just catching up on this thread, but I honestly don't understand what's got your panties in such a wad, IU. Nobody's saying that players should take it upon themselves to teach somebody a lesson. Nobody. Who said that? Where did you see that? It's not anywhere in this thread. This is a terrible and unfortunate incident. And if the two young men have any character at all, or any caring adults in their lives, they will each learn some important lessons from it. I don't think anyone can argue with that. Do you disagree with that? Do you think that there is no lesson to be learned for either player?

The fact that there are important lessons to be drawn in no way justifies the actions of either player. No one here is saying, "It's a good thing that kid took it upon himself to kick the crap out of that troublemaker". As Rut said, the white kid just didn't realize who he was messing with and now both kids will have to face the consequences of the incident.

And, as I already mentioned (you may recall), everybody here agrees with you. Everybody. Every single poster. Count 'em. Hands up if you think it wasn't over the line. Anyone? Anyone? Bueler? Bueler? Nope. We all agree with you. Now take a deep breath.

I think the FED would disagree with you. As JR pointed out, an action that provokes a fight is a fight. It might be worth your while to listen to JR once in a while, when he's not being cranky.

That's fascinating, but hardly relevant. The NBA operates in its own world, where players earn millions of dollars and fans pay $1,000 for a seat at a game. That doesn't relate at all to a HS game, unless David Stern has just become commissioner of that summer league.

My spelling and grammar contributions to this board are generally made in a light-hearted manner and usually accompanied by a smilie of some sort. If you choose to respond in a different manner, that's your small-minded choice.

Oh, for the love of God, no freakin' kidding!!! Get over yourself. We all agree with this!!!!!!!

I guess you only scanned this one 4 times. Here's a smilie to let you know there's no hard feelings. :)

Now relax, would you please?

1) Well, I certainly would hate to be labelled "cranky", but the correct spelling is <b><i>Bueller</i></b>, dickhead.

2) To help IU Grad with the difference between "your" and "you're", may I respectfully submit the following:

http://www.forumspile.com/Spelling-Blackboard.jpg

- and anybody that thinks that I was being serious because I never attached a "smilie" above..... you really <b>really</b> needs a sense-of-humor transplant.

This fight may have been precipitated by the lack of foul calls on the previous contact. Had any one of the elbows, jostles or shoves been called, there may have been no fight.

For this reason, the officials involved may also be named as defendants in the civil lawsuit. Presumably the insurance will cover the damages, as the medical costs were not that extensive. I just wonder why no one has considered this aspect.

You never liked me :(

I get the spellings confused b/c I had a college professor who spelled it with only one "l". So although, I usually talk about the movie, I have more often had to write it with the professor's spelling. Sorry for the error. I hope I have not done permanent damage to my reputation as supreme authority on all things spelling.

(I was going to intentionally mis-spell "permanent", but I figured you're in too cranky of a mood to get the humor. :p )

Hey, at least he didn't post here about the time he caught you wanking in the tree...

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....<b>without</b> prior incident". There <b>was</b> 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 <b>followed</b> 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?:confused: NFHS rule 4-18-2 sureasheck says that I can. Aamof that rule says that is the proper and correct call-<i>"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"</i>. Imo a deliberate push sureasheck could be interpreted as an unsporting act if that deliberate push was <b>immediately</b> 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 <b>without</b> 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.

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.

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.

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

You don't have to apologize for having spelling errors. For God Sake this is a damn forum, who gives a shi* about misspelling a word.......

Well, I give a sh!t about people who make statements and then refuse to answer questions about them too.

Again, what does race have to do with incident? :confused: Please be specific.

It's not "for God Sake". It's "for God's sake". :)

I only care about my spelling errors, b/c I point them out in other people's posts so frequently. (See above :D ) You haven't been here very long, so you obviously don't yet recognize me as the final authority on all things spelling.

(Speaking of all things spelling: rest in peace, Aaron. Thank God Tori is still around to carry your legacy!)

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.