Bad situation . . . Could've been worse!
 

Scenario: Championship Game of JV Boys Tournament. Rival Schools in the same district. Team A is ahead by 3 points. Approximately 5:30 left in the 3rd Quarter. Team B calls a Full Timeout. (NOTE: One Flagrant Technical has already been given to Team B Player for instigating a fight.) 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. Police go into stands and break up the fight. Team B's players are directed back to the bench. Game continues with no more problems. Team A loses by 4 because of Free Throws. Foul count at the end of the second half was 12-10 in favor of Team B. (If there is more information needed, please ask.)

My question is this: do you call flagrant technical fouls on the 10 Team B players for running on the floor to participate in a fight in the stands, hence ejecting almost the entire team, and then declare a forfeit because there are not enough players to continue? Or, do we continue, but only with the two remaining players on Team B's bench? Or, do we address the issue such as we did . . . talking with the players, letting them know that they cannot do that, and that those actions can result in them being ejected from the game and suspended for the remainder of the season?

Any opinions are welcome. Thanks in advance.

Eject Players
 

You must eject the players on the spot and continue from there. You were lucky to not have any further problems. This kind of behavior is unacceptable.

So by your description, they left the bench area during a fight. The rule does not specify who is doing the fighting, only that there is a fight or that one may break out.

1-13-3 . . . The bench area shall be the area inside an imaginary rectangle formed by the boundaries of the sideline (including the bench), end line, and an imaginary line extended from the free-throw lane line nearest the bench area meeting an imaginary line extended from the coaching-box line.
10-4-5 . . . Leave the confines of the bench during a fight or when a fight may break out.
NOTE: The head coach may enter the court only if beckoned by an official.
PENALTY: (Art. 5) Flagrant foul, disqualification of individual offender, but only one technical-foul penalty is administered regardless of the number of offenders. This one foul is also charged indirectly to the head coach. If the head coach is an offender, an additional flagrant technical foul is charged directly to the coach and penalized. When a simultaneous technical foul(s) by opponents occurs, the free throws are not awarded when the penalties offset.

Strictly speaking those 10 team members broke the rule. You would have had justification for disqualifying them, if you so desired. You will get differing opinions on whether you should have done so or if you managed the situation well and prevented a "Detroit Pistons problem". You were there, you did what you thought was best at the time.
If you had elected to DQ those 10, then the game would continue with the 2 remaining team members. A team does not forfeit until they have only one player remaining and do not have a chance to win.

BTW, if you had called 10 flagrant Ts would you have known to only award 2 FTs? :eek:

I agree. You have to dump all players involved in the fight and make sure it is reported to the state. After that, play on with whatever players are left, unless it gets to 1 and you decide that they don't have a chance to win. Sounds like a really rough night at the office.

Interestingly enough, the game itself went fairly well, other than the one flagrant technical.

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.

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 <B>an opponent</B> ...
Art. 2 - An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act towards <B>an opponent</B>...

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?

What he said.

Thanks.

I'll send you one of my bowling trophies.

I'm going to make some space in my attic for my new prized possession!

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 learned from reading the best... ;) :D

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

:eek:

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?

Based on what rule, genius?

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.

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.

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 <B>have</B> 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 <B>do</B> 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.

How about between the officials then? :D

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.

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?...

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.

Yeah, and now these situations which are other than a fight ARE covered. All that comment did was give ONE example of an altercation that previously had no coverage under the rule. Now not only that ONE situation, but many others are covered.

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".

That's cool. Now find me an applicable cite that covers a fight that <b>isn't</b> between opponents.

First off, the OP said 10 players were on the floor. We don't know if all 10 were outside the bench area. And, where is that bench area? In 1-13-3 it lists a rather large area on the floor.

Btw, I assume if I were to have A shoot 20 FT's, I would have a <B>real</B> grumpy assignor to deal with. ;)

Bowling is a much more civilized sport. When was the last time you heard of a fight breaking out at a bowling tournament?

1) We sureasheck do know that the 10 were outside the bench area. The bench area only extends onto the court as far as the closest FT lane line to their bench. The OP said that they were more than half-way across the court.

2) Yup, anybody handing out 20FT's in that situation would probably make a grumpy assignor even more grumpy. I'm just arguing rules-wise.

3) Bowling is great. Gets the kids off the streets and into the alleys.

Bowling is a much more civilized sport. When was the last time you heard of a fight breaking out at a bowling tournament?[/QUOTE]




Sorry, but we just had a fight at our bowling alley last Saturday. Not real sure if the fight was over bowling or beer but it still took place in the bowling alley. :eek:

Back to the topic at hand.

I am the new guy and do not have my rules book with me so I can not quote specific areas of the rule book. I believe that it says in there that we as officials of the game have the authority to make dicisions on situations that may not be specifically covered in the rule book.

Taking that into consideration and that this is a JV game, I think we would have to take into consideration here what do we do to make sure the kids are safe and that the integrity to the game is upheld.

I believe this is one situation that you would have to deffinately be there to determine what each of us would do in this case but I can deffinately see where what the original poster did would work and still be within the rules. I can also see where completely stopping the game would be within the rules.

I am some what new to basketball but have been officiating baseball/softball for many years at many different levels and use to be a state UIC for one organization, Far to often I would see my guys enforcing the steed fast written rule instead of the intent of the rule.

let the flames begin. :o

Yabut, we still don't know how many. The OP said they stopped players who were more than halfway across the floor. They also said there were 10 players on the floor. Who was where? We can assume, but we don't know without watching it when it shows up on YouTube.

The part that muddied the issue for me was the fact it occured during a TO. If it had been a live ball situation, I don't think I could disagree with your rules cites. Yes, players need to be within the "bench area" during a TO. But what if a coach tells the team, "Get your heads out of your a$$es!!", and that's it? Now they start to walk out on the floor because they're done with the TO. Do I wait for them to step out of that bench area and start whacking? Probably not. I also don't think this is an obvious fight situation either. So given all the mud in the water, I'm willing to give bigdogrunnin the benefit of the doubt. Of course, I'm not his grumpy old assignor, so he will have to live with what he/she says.

You know, I now have that queasy feeling in my stomach, just like after eating a few hot dogs. Thanks alot.

I don't have to as I am conceding that this altercation isn't a fight; it is merely a situation "when a fight may break out." Therefore, it is covered by 10-4-5.


I don't agree that that is the correct procedure. For team members violating 10-4-5, but who do NOT themselves actually fight, the penalty is a MAXIMUM of 2 FTs to the opponents. I already cited that ruling in this thread.

Ask Allen Iverson. :eek:

1) How do you figure it's covered by R10-4-4?:confused: There's no mention of a "fight" anywhere in R10-4-4. It doesn't matter where in the rulebook that you find the word "fight" anyway. A " fight" is still defined in R4-18 as <b>always</b> being between two <b>opponents</b>. If players do come on the floor because a "fight may break out", then that "fight" has to be between </b>opponents</b>, not fans.

2) I'm referencing team members leaving the <b>"bench area"</b> in R10-4-4. There's no mention of a "fight" in that article. You're referencing R10-4-5, a completely <b>different</b> article. R10-4-4 and 10-4-5 have different penalties. There's no mention of just one technical foul penalty being administered anywhere in R10-4-4PENALTY.

Changed Situation.

During a timeout, an altercation breaks out in the stands across from the team benches. Players/subsititutes from both teams leave the bench area and head at any rate of speed towards the altercation.

Do we now have a situation where a fight (as defined by rule) might break out?

Nope. There's no "opponents" fighting, is there? If they're just going to take a look, you'd need a crystal ball to determine that a fight <b>might</b> break out between the teams. I know that I ain't that smart.

So you don't think it is possible that opponents might fight when they are running towards an altercation in process? That stretches the bounds of credability. Remember that opponents don't actually have to be fighting just the possibility of opponents fighting is sufficient.

I'm kind of in favor of calling what you actually <b>know</b>, not what you <b>think</b>. It's possible that the roof might cave in too. That doesn't mean that I'm gonna clear the gym just in case.

Best. Post. Ever. (Regarding bowling.) I know kids should get a second chance for a lot of things. But it always seemed to me that he got a break just because he could play basketball. I know that's how the real world works. But at 15 or 16 years old, that's a sad lesson to teach a kid.

OK, uh, WOW. Didn't expect so much response, but hey, THANKS! Anyway, to clarify for some, the players were ACROSS the free throw lane AWAY from the bench. This situation occurred during a FULL timeout by Team B, and they were ALL at their bench to begin the TO. NONE of the players ever made it to the stands, as they were stopped by several coaches and myself.

As I have read through posts, I have realized there can be many different perspectives when considering a rule that either may not exist, or the rules that do exist may not be applicable to the situation. For some, I truly do appreciate the "rules aspect," of your posts because it forces me to take into consideration the "legality" of officials' rulings. For those posting from the "intent of the rule" position, that helps me in the "game management" and "coach relations" domain. So, to both sides (and in-between), Thank you.

For myself, I have been calling several years now, and study the rules at length as time during the day permits, and I could have NEVER imagined almost an entire team leaving the bench area to go INTO the stands to participate in a fight. JR, yes, I do believe the intent for at least ONE players was to participate (his mother started the fight with a teenage boy cheering for the other team). The rest were just lending, um, uh . . . "morale support." :rolleyes:

Anyway, at the time, with emotions running high on the part of Team B (players and coaches), and because the game had been going really well (even with one Flagrant T given earlier), I chose to try to focus everyone's attention back on the game and the task at hand. I could say that I just have "that kind of court presence," :D or I can say I just got lucky. I mainly did what I did, because I didn't want to see a group of kids lose what could have been an entire season to one REALLY dumb decision, as they could very easily have been suspended for the duration by the State Association. I had my co-official's support, as well as the coaches, and game administrators . . . with the understanding that any additional incidents and we WOULD clear the gym. As I stated earlier, the rest of the night went great, and we had no other problems.

Thanks again for the responses.

There's a heckuva difference between a discussion here and facing that type of situation in real life.

Sounds like you did a good job in a tough situation.

He went to jail for his offenses and I'm pretty sure he missed his senior basketball season, so I don't consider that getting a break, especially for a 17 year old kid.

I believe he was pardoned by the govenor at the time, and his conviction was overturned on appeal.

</font size>

Correct, JR, I got the number wrong. I've edited my post. Now how about addressing the merits of it instead of the mistake in the rule number citation.

OK. It's without merit.

Good comeback, Potsy.