You make the call, part whatever

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I believe that Gold 10 had a chance to restrain herself and didn't.

Re: Taunting: it is verbal. Provide a case were both acts are physical.

And your belief that Gold 10 had a chance to restrain herself is completely irrelevant, rules wise. That's my point. The only thing needed to know to rule on this particular case is that Gold 10 actually DID retaliate by fighting. There's no guessing involved.

This case also is a good example of both acts being physical. That's completely irrelevant also though. By rule, the instigating act doesn't have to involve contact. The only requirement is that it is has to be unsporting in nature and lead to retaliation by fighting. By rule also, both the instigation and the retaliation needn't be physical either. It can involve, as per 4-18-1, "an attempt to punch, strike or kick an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made."

Classic fight under R4-18 imo. As I said, we disagree.

[Mark Dexter]

Have to agree with Jurassic on this one. Red's little temper-tantrum was a kick (several, actually). Whether gold retaliates or not, I'm ejecting the original red player for fighting.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And your belief that Gold 10 had a chance to restrain herself is completely irrelevant, rules wise. That's my point. The only thing needed to know to rule on this particular case is that Gold 10 actually DID retaliate by fighting. There's no guessing involved.

This case also is a good example of both acts being physical. That's completely irrelevant also though. By rule, the instigating act doesn't have to involve contact. The only requirement is that it is has to be unsporting in nature and lead to retaliation by fighting. By rule also, both the instigation and the retaliation needn't be physical either. It can involve, as per 4-18-1, "an attempt to punch, strike or kick an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made."

Classic fight under R4-18 imo. As I said, we disagree.

Agreed.

Like my friend Paul Chapman says, "A million chinese won't give a $4!t tomorrow."

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Have to agree with Jurassic on this one. Red's little temper-tantrum was a kick (several, actually). Whether gold retaliates or not, I'm ejecting the original red player for fighting.

So Gold 10 does nothing and then you're ruling that Red 5's kick is ejectionable? When I looked at the video, I only see one kick that is shown in the video. It occured at 00:05.

I looked at the video again, and Gold 9 initially stands NOT straddling Red 5. When Red 4 comes in the play (00:09), it's very possible that she knocked Gold 9 off her balance, causing Gold 9 to regain her balance by stepping over Red 5. Yes, Gold 9's right leg was lifted before Red 4 contacted her, but Gold 9 wasn't off balance then, nor was Gold 9's leg moving forward or over Red 5. Gold 9 then showed due diligence by being careful not to step on anyone.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It doesn't matter whether you thought that the wimpy kick wasn't meant to start a fight. The fact is that the wimpy kick actually did start the fight. The severity of the instigating act, a wimpy kick, isn't a factor either, by rule.

Say A1 accidentally "clips" B1's shoulder as A1 turns to run forwards instead of back paddling. B1 takes exception by punching A1. A1's act wasn't meant to start a fight, but it did. If severity doesn't matter, then both are gone for fighting.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Say A1 accidentally "clips" B1's shoulder as A1 turns to run forwards instead of back paddling. B1 takes exception by punching A1. A1's act wasn't meant to start a fight, but it did. If severity doesn't matter, then both are gone for fighting.

Sigh.....

Was the kick in the play being discussed "accidental"? The k9ick was deliberate and the opponent responded to it. According to the rules, that's a "fight".

According to the rules, it doesn't matter if the kick even lands. If an attempt at a kick instigates a fight, then that attempt is deemed "fighting". If you say something unsporting to somebody, and they respond by whacking you upside your head, then what you said is also considered as "fighting". Dem's the rules. Severity doesn't matter. You start a fight in any way--you're gone. You swing or kick at somebody, you're gone. You don't even have to make contact.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You may want to read HFHS rule 4-18-2 some time---

"HFHS"? Is that the federation in Hell?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

So Gold 10 does nothing and then you're ruling that Red 5's kick is ejectionable? When I looked at the video, I only see one kick that is shown in the video. It occured at 00:05.

Absolutely.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

According to the rules, it doesn't matter if the kick even lands. If an attempt at a kick instigates a fight, then that attempt is deemed "fighting".

Actually, trying to kick someone is fighting - whether a full-on fight breaks out or not.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Actually, trying to kick someone is fighting - whether a full-on fight breaks out or not.

True dat.