Bad situation . . . Could've been worse!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

An interesting bit of legalese. Your argument is that the fight in the stands does not meet the NFHS rules book definition of a "fight". Therefore, the team members are not leaving the confines of the bench during a "fight" as defined by the NFHS and thus are not subject to 10-4-5 in this situation.


I'm not sure that is a reasonable interpretation of the spirit and intent of rule 10-4-5.

I think this interpretation grants some discretion to the refs, and in this case, I think it's a good thing. Cooler heads prevailed. I can see doing this either way, and it's justifiable either way.
If the kids are ejected, they should have known better. It's always best not to do things that force the refs to make a choice on whether it warrants a T or ejection or nothing.
If the kids are allowed to play-on, they've been rewarded for using their better judgment.

[Adam]

I have another question. How did you manage to have a single flagrant on a B player for instigating a fight without having a matching flagrant on A. Did A not retaliate? If not, how was it instigating a fight if the fight didn't happen? I'm just curious. I've only had two fights, and both times I had at least one player from each team.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I have another question. How did you manage to have a single flagrant on a B player for instigating a fight without having a matching flagrant on A. Did A not retaliate? If not, how was it instigating a fight if the fight didn't happen? I'm just curious. I've only had two fights, and both times I had at least one player from each team.

He probably meant that the kid attempted to instigate a fight by an unsporting act, but that line continues to add "that causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting."

Strictly by the book it seems that the single disqualification that did take place should have been justified by 10-3-7c instead of the fighting rule.

[OHBBREF]

We could argue the legalese of this situation for ever - you get your lawer and I'll get mine - however they did leave the bench durring a fight while they did not participate is irrelevant by rule.
NOTE: siince the coaches stopped the progression of the players to the fight no penalty should be assesed to them they were assisting in controling the situation.
Also what the hell were you doing getting in the way of people going to a fight? sit back and relax and watch the who what and where of the situation but stay out of the middle of it.

Now haveing said what happened and the book version of it - I think you did the right thing not to exaserbate the situation by adding in a bunch of fouls and penalties that would just cause you more grief - write your report and let the league and the state deal with it. your defense for not ejecting anyone is that the fight was not between two opponents.
let us know what the league and ths state say about this situation.

[Camron Rust]

Has any one considered that 5 of the team members were "players"? Those 5 would have the right to return to the floor at the end of the timeout. Perhaps only 5 could be charged with leaving the bench area since the other 5 could legally return to any part of the floor.

[deecee]

wow really git a bit nit picky here are we not?

[Texas Aggie]

You guys are making this thing way too hard. Nevada, hate to say it, but you got it wrong initially and need to admit it rather than going on how interpretation, which is wrong, legalease or not, could still be correct.

1. Don't eject any player.
2. Clear the gym and don't start the game until EVERYONE is gone.

I doubt any coach is going to disagree with these actions. While I'm sure there are fans in the stands that had nothing to do with the fight, the cops and game admins can make it clear who is making them leave: the punks that started the fight.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by bigdogrunnin

As for the players on the court, does the rule book specifically address WHERE the fight is occurring? Because the fight was in the stands, and was not "part of the game," and the players didn't actually participate, do we still consider that a flagrant T on those players on the floor? Just curious.

To answer your question, the rulebook does not specifically address where the fight is occurring. To answer the second part, it's a judgement call. I could argue both ways, however, I like the way you handle it even better. I don't think enough time is spent discussing game management skills. When to apply game management skills over the rule of law?

To further clarify your point, which I think is about bench personnel leaving the bench area. Forget about the act of fighting for a moment. Bench personnel or players on the court can not go into the stands whether there's a fight or not. That's an automatic flagrant, you're ejected. Case in point, I had a bad game several years ago, championship summer varsity game where a simliar type of thing happened. The star player in the game gets into it with a fan and takes his shirt off and runs up into the stands and confronts the fan. No punches where thrown, calmer heads prevail. Even though no punches where thrown, the player ejected for running into the stands.

What would you have done, if the fight started in the stands behind the bench?

The question I have is how can you continue the game with just 1 player? The one player can not pass the ball to himself so he could never inbound the ball. It makes no sense to me.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So here is my legalistic response.

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.

And this leads to the old question about what to do if two teammates punch each other during the game. Is that fighting? Are they DQ'd?

Personally, I would toss them by pointing to certain words contained in the definitons of an unsporting foul in 4-19-14 and a flagrant foul in 4-19-4.
4-19-14: "dishonorable conduct"
4-19-4: "displays unacceptable conduct"

And, the common thread to your examples is these are all participants in the game. The rule says "opponents", but I would have no problem with adding teammates, other coaches, table personnel, etc. in to the mix, all of these being participants in the game. The "fight" occured in the stands, and none of the game participants was a part of that fight. So how do you apply the rule pertaining to a fight, if the "fight" is not among the participants?

Let's take it one step further - one parent happened to buy the last hot dog at the concession stand, and the parent from the other team took exception to this and started a fight. During the TO, the players hear the commotion and have to come out on the floor to be able to look out the doorway and see what's going on. There's a fight, it's not among the game participants, the players left their bench area, so should they be penalized?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Old School

The question I have is how can you continue the game with just 1 player? The one player can not pass the ball to himself so he could never inbound the ball. It makes no sense to me.

He could throw the ball inbounds such that it touches an opponent and attempt to get it. He could also just throw it down the court to the opponents and play defense, if his lead is large enough.

[bob jenkins]

Who has last year's book? Wasn't "leaving the bench" a POE? What does it say? (I seem to remember something about "sitting in the stands" or "going into the hallway to get a drink of water.")

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Who has last year's book? Wasn't "leaving the bench" a POE? What does it say? (I seem to remember something about "sitting in the stands" or "going into the hallway to get a drink of water.")

That's not a flagrant or fighting and in any event in the original sitch the players got no where near the stands or the hallway.

And I *still* think the hot dog guy is to blame!

[deecee]

I love how it appears that many of you just want to make it so much more difficult than it is. enough trouble finds us in games that we dont have to go LOOK for more by really reaching and trying so hard to be RIGHT.

You are a basektball ref not a lawyer trying to get your client off the hook. you want to waddle in poop expect poop on your shoes. in this instance I am not ejecting, assessing T's, or even blowing my whistle at any of the kids. I get flames here constantly because I stress that you need to be able to manage games in difficult situations and thats what defines you as an official. Sometimes the letter of the law could get you in hot water -- I mean everyone could agree completly with what you did and you were supported by the letter of the law hypothetically -- but hey it could still leave a very sour taste in people mouth (and by that i mean colleagues and assignors). I am not saying do whats easy, I am saying do whats right. Finding a loophole to eject these 10 players isnt easy or right and its damn retarded. I would cringe if this happened in my game and my partner wanted to eject --

honeslty nevada I have never met anyone who reads so much into the rule book or tries to come up with ways in the rule book to justify some very funky unorthodox approaches to situations. sometimes the rules are just what they say they are -- to much thinking complicates things sometimes and thats what I see here. And I hope your last post was a joke.

BOB -- wtf with the "getting a drink of water" are you going to follow the kid?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

To further clarify your point, which I think is about bench personnel leaving the bench area. Forget about the act of fighting for a moment. Bench personnel or players on the court can not go into the stands whether there's a fight or not. That's an automatic flagrant, you're ejected.

Based on what rule, genius?

Originally Posted by Old School

Case in point, I had a bad game several years ago, championship summer varsity game where a simliar type of thing happened. The star player in the game gets into it with a fan and takes his shirt off and runs up into the stands and confronts the fan. No punches where thrown, calmer heads prevail. Even though no punches where thrown, the player ejected for running into the stands.

You ejected him for running into the stands? By what rule. I’ve got a T here, maybe a flagrant for taunting or something. But just going into the stands is a T by itself.

Originally Posted by Old School

The question I have is how can you continue the game with just 1 player? The one player can not pass the ball to himself so he could never inbound the ball. It makes no sense to me.

Because, by rule, you can continue a game with 1 player on a given team if you deem he has a chance of winning the game. I’m sure in your absolutely dominant intelligence you can come up with a scenario in which this might be possible.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bigdogrunnin

During the Timeout, a FIGHT breaks out in the stands between fans of the Rival Schools. Team B players start running across the court to join in the fight (one of Team B's players parents started the fight). Team B coaches and myself stop the players before they get across the court, but they were more than half way across at this point. Of the 12 players on Team B's bench, 10 were on the floor going toward the stands, two stayed on the bench.

It ain't a fight, by rule.

Charge a technical foul on each player for entering the court, as per NFHS rule 10-4-2. That's also 10 indirect "T"s for the head coach; he's gonna disappear. Shoot 20 technical FT's and give team A the ball at center.

Or....suspend the game. Write everything down on the scoresheet and let someone else figure out what to do.