Bad situation . . . Could've been worse!

[bigdogrunnin]

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.

[hbioteach]

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.

[Junker]

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.

[bigdogrunnin]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

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.

Originally Posted by bigdogrunnin

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

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

[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?

[Dan_ref]

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?

What he said.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

What he said.

Thanks.

I'll send you one of my bowling trophies.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

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!

[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.