Bad situation . . . Could've been worse!

[rainmaker]

When someone posts here, and asks about whether they should have issued a T in a certain situation, people here often respond with, "Did it make the game better?" Seems like, if there were no other problems, that you did the right thing. You read the situation, judged the kids' moods and attitudes and put the lid on the pot, and it didn't boil over. I'm not saying that would always be the "right" thing to do, but it sounds like your judgment was effective in this situation.

[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"

[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.

[johnnyrao]

Wow! I would say that by rule you should issue a flagrant for all 10 players, two free throws for Team A, an indirect for the coach, and continue with two team A players.

But, I would also assess the whole atmosphere in the gym. For example, what do you think would have happened in an already charged up gym if you make this ruling? What is now a game management problem with fans could quickly escalate to you and your crew and, perhaps, make things worse. I think, from the sounds of things, you guys did fine and made an on the spot decision that not only continues the game but also prevented a potentially worse situation. I think this needs to be considered too.

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Yabut, all this occured during a TO. So, don't the players have the right to be on the court during a TO? In fact, if it was a 30-sec. TO, the 5 players in the game have to be up and on the court. So 10-4-2 wouldn't apply, right?

And, you said this isn't a fight, by rule. So what do we charge the players with?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Yabut, all this occured during a TO. So, don't the players have the right to be on the court during a TO? In fact, if it was a 30-sec. TO, the 5 players in the game have to be up and on the court. So 10-4-2 wouldn't apply, right?

And, you said this isn't a fight, by rule. So what do we charge the players with?

Use rule 10-4-4 then. They're out of their "bench area" as defined in rule 1-13-3, aren't they? The OP said that they were more than halfway across the court. Same difference.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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.

How about between the officials then?

M&M,
I understand the case that you are making and do believe that it has merit. However, what carries more weight for me is that this rule was clearly put in to prevent the bench personnel from escalating a volatile situation.

The idea is that if the number of people involved can be limited by means of a harsh deterrent (flagrant T just for leaving the bench area), then the game officials and the game management staff have a better chance of controlling the incident. (You probably agree with that.)
The message that the NFHS wants to get across to the teams is DON'T LEAVE THE BENCH when there is a problem elsewhere.

Now if you are unconvinced by that argument, then I have another one. Let me concede that the altercation in the stands is not a “fight” by the NFHS definition and that rule 4-18 does not apply.
I believe that the letter of the law would still justify disqualifications in this situation under 10-4-4. This is because the NFHS added "or when a fight may break out" to 10-4-4 in 2004-05 and commented:

PLAYER(S) EJECTED FOR LEAVING BENCH IF FIGHT MAY OCCUR (10-4-4): A bench player will now be ejected if he or she leaves the confines of the bench during a fight or when a fight may break out. Previously there was no coverage in the rules book when bench personnel left the bench when two or more players confronted one another but no fight occurred. These volatile situations can easily degenerate into a fight or worse by the presence of team members from the bench. The penalty is now the same as for leaving the bench during a fight, ejection.

Now is this a situation in which a fight MAY break out? I think that one can reasonably conclude that it is. Thus whether or not a “fight” is actually occurring is not the relevant issue, and the disqualifications are justified by the book

Would I enforce those penalties? It's very difficult to say in an internet forum. I would have to be in the situation and make the decision that I believed was correct.
That is what BDR did, and it seems that he handled it well. I can't say for sure because I wasn't there, but I'm not going to second guess his judgment. However, when he comes on this forum and specifically asks about what the rule says to do, I will give him my opinion in the hope that it helps him to be a better and more prepared official. (For example, knowing that even if he had decided that four ejections were warranted and called four flagrant Ts, only 2 FTs would be awarded to the opponents is a crucial bit of rules information that can be gained from discussions such as this.) Afterall, the main purpose of what we write here is to gain a better understanding of how to officiate a basketball game.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Now if you are unconvinced by that argument, then I have another one. Let me concede that the altercation in the stands is not a “fight” by the NFHS definition and that rule 4-18 does not apply.
I believe that the letter of the law would still justify disqualifications in this situation under 10-4-4. This is because the NFHS added "or when a fight may break out" to 10-4-4 in 2004-05 and commented:

PLAYER(S) EJECTED FOR LEAVING BENCH IF FIGHT MAY OCCUR (10-4-4): A bench player will now be ejected if he or she leaves the confines of the bench during a fight or when a fight may break out. Previously there was no coverage in the rules book when bench personnel left the bench when two or more players confronted one another but no fight occurred. These volatile situations can easily degenerate into a fight or worse by the presence of team members from the bench. The penalty is now the same as for leaving the bench during a fight, ejection.

Again, your cite above mentions "players" being involved in the altercation. That's not the case in the original pst, as M&M pointed out.

Fighting rules cover players and teammembers, not parents in the stands.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Use rule 10-4-4 then. They're out of their "bench area" as defined in rule 1-13-3, aren't they? The OP said that they were more than halfway across the court. Same difference.

Except we're talking about 10-4-4(c), the TO exception.

Ok, I know, we can then get into the area allowed for players during a TO, and we might be able to argue if they were outside that as well. Or we could argue if the players that were already more than halfway across the court might've been the 5 current players coming out of the huddle after the TO. We don't have all the information as to where the players were before this started, or how it actually transpired. But I guess what I'm saying is if we have the situation where the coaches (and officials) are keeping the players out of the stands, and they listen, I don't see a downside to not penalizing them. What if this happened during play, perhaps a dead ball, and you can see the players stand up, but the coaches are telling them to get back? What if a couple of players have one foot in-bounds before they're yanked back? Without having all the appropriate information (and, of course, the tape), I'm not sure calling all those T's makes the game better. Getting the knuckleheads in the stands outta there certainly makes it better. Maybe even make them eat more hot dogs on the way out?...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Except we're talking about 10-4-4(c), the TO exception.

Ok, I know, we can then get into the area allowed for players during a TO, and we might be able to argue if they were outside that as well. Or we could argue if the players that were already more than halfway across the court might've been the 5 current players coming out of the huddle after the TO.

Um, yeah, that's exactly what I said. You had 10 team members out of their bench area. It doesn't really matter if they were "players" or not.

POE 4 in the 2003-04 rulebook said "Teams should remain in the bench area during 60- and 30-second time-outs".