Bad situation . . . Could've been worse!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Nevada - I agree with everything you posted, except you left out one. The definition of Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
Art. 1. - An attempt to strike, punch or kick an opponent ...
Art. 2 - An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act towards an opponent...

So, could it be argued that what bigdogrunnin did was acceptable, because the players were reacting to something in the stands, not towards an opponent? I'm certainly not arguing that there was a fight in the stands, and that if one or more of the players had gone up there, it would be easy to issue the penalties. But since the rule states a fight is between opponents, and the coaches and officials stopped the players from going into the stands, doesn't their solution seems acceptable?

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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

An interesting bit of legalese.

I learned from reading the best...

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

And you might be right. But if they meant a fight anywhere, including the stands, they might not have added the wording regarding the opponents. And this seemed more of a site management situation, rather than something to do with the game itself, so yet another reason to leave it alone if at all possible.

Like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with the penalties if they had made it into the stands.

[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]

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.

[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?

[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 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.