You make the call, part whatever
 

Should there be any ejections? Or is it just your average run-of-the-mill chickfight?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4jij...elated&search=

[QUOTE=Mark Padgett]Should there be any ejections? Or is it just your average run-of-the-mill chickfight?

:eek: Looks like a old fashioned chick fight to although not a very good one. KICK ME! KICK ME!! PLEASE!!! NO! NO! HIT ME! I INSIST! :eek:
But to answer your question, an ejection or two would seem to be warranted depending on how much of the entire play that the crew saw. Fortunately for me, no girls/womens game that I've worked has degenerated into that.

Under NFHS rules, I'd say 2 ejections for fighting--#5 Red and #10 Gold. And it looked like #9 Gold deliberately dropped the ball on #5 Red when she was down.

Sooooooo......
- someone fouled #5 Red in the act of shooting.
- followed by double flagrant technical fouls on both #5 red and #10 gold for fighting.
-followed by a technical foul on #9 gold.

- the substitute for #5 red gets 2 FT's with no one on the lanes.
- no FT's for the double flagrant technical fouls.
- any Red player(s) can shoot the 2 FT's for the "T" by #9 Gold.
- throw-in for Red at center.

Looks like a FIBA game, so I don't have a clue what the call should be under that ruleset.

We've looked at this one before iirc.

I agree with Jurassic Ref - 2 ejections, T on #9 but I don't think she dropped the ball on purpose. I thought #4 red reached around #9 and accidentaly knocked the ball out of her hand.

Agree.

Disagree. Looks to me like the ball was knocked out of her hands. If I'm not sure about it, I'm not going to add the T.

Eject for the kick and the push and leave it at that.

I agree with JR....but could even see tossing #9 as an option. She had no business straddling the red player. It looked like she was doing so to intimidate her...would have been interesting to hear too.

So.....NFHS.....
- sub for #5 Red shoots 2 for the foul in the act of shooting
- no FT's for the double technical foul
-resume play at POI of the double technical foul, which is the Red sub for #5 shooting 2 FT's with the teams lined up on the lanes.

What bothered me most was the location of the hands of the ref when pulling gold 10 away from the fight.

I noticed that but I figured he was just trying to keep abreast of the situation. :p

Yeah I remember seeing that left cross before. I am *still* impressed!

That #10 needs some serious anger management classes.

But then, #5 had no business kicking her. Sheez, what an idiot.

Was there a sheriff there? If they knew there would be problems.... hmmm.... not sure how to finish that sentence.

I've always been taught that you don't grab a player and pull them away - if you restrain their arms like that and someone takes a swing at them that could be even worse!

I still say that #9 gets a T for standing over the player on the floor. That means gold will shoot two additional FT's - in addition to the 2 for the foul in the act of shooting.

<i>Hell hath no fury like a wimmen kicked.</i>

I think that's in the Bible somewhere.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. What I was disagreeing with was that the player intentionally threw or dropped the ball on the player on the floor.

If you think the straddle is unsportsmanlike, then by all means whack away.

Both are straight judgment calls.

Believe me, if it was in anyway inappropiate, she would have turned around and lit that ref up as pissed off as she was. I think his reaction was just to grab her and stop the brawl which meant grab anything. I think his reaction was slow but once he realized what was going on, he jumped right in there. Now if this was the men, I ain't grabbing nobody. I would step in between the person getting punch on the floor in an attempt to stop the aggressor and protect the player. If I don't get immediate help from the players, I'm out of there.

I agree, there really is no reason for gold to stand on top of her after she was punched a couple of times like that. It's like she was getting ready to deliver a couple of punches too. That was unsportsmanlike. Off official should have got that one. Now if the crew would have given the 2nd gold girl a T (not a flagrant) for her actions, I would have been extremely impressed with this crew. If they didn't access her a T at all, I would not be mad at them either.

Intentional on 10 yellow in the act of shooting..she didn't go for ball look at where her hands are in the last seconds before the shot.

The flagrant on both 10 yellow and 5 red...for the fight and anyone else off the bench

Nothing on 9 yellow look at the film red 4 is the one who knocks the ball out of her hand...

also to the lead official...why are you watching the ball go in from lead???? but even if pre-gamed follow the shooter(protect) not the shot....that's what you have a partner(s) for

IMOHO

So...let me see if I understand you. If you are a male official, it's OK to grab a female player on the breasts but it's not OK to grab a male player anywhere for any reason.

Where do you officiate - the Mustang Ranch? :p

You can't tell that from the video. Although you are correct, if you watched the shooter to the floor, you probably could have prevented the retaliation from gold (never say yellow, only one syllable at least for Fed., don't have a clue for FIBA).

Viewing the breast grab a little closer, the ref grabbed the upper torso of the women to get control of her and get her off the girl on the floor. This guy might have some law enforcement or military training because he defused her or got her out of that situation real nice. He was not grabbing for her breasts. This is a good maneuver to grab the men accept you add locking your hands behind the neck thus severely hindering there arm movement where they can no longer throw a punch, and then take them out of the situation. Highly, not recommended for a men's fight, use with caution.

You misspelled "woman", "except" and "their" plus you put a comma in where it is not supposed to be.

Still want to argue that your language skills are better than mine, Old Mule? :p

Ejections for Red 5, Gold 10 and Gold 9.

Whether #9 purposely dropped the ball or not, she had no reason to go and straddle the opponent on the ground.

Got too many things on my mind but you are right, these are all legitimate mistakes. I suck at writing. I'm glad i don't have to do this for a living. Know where I can get a good keyboard. BTW, you have set the bar pretty high, you have to do this to everybody, not just me. If you do it to just me, then you are just picking on me, which defeats your purpose. If you think I'm bad at writing, you should hear me talk. Nobody can clear a room out faster than me!:D

Low, slow and over the plate....

Not necessarily. :D

OK - truce. :)

Didn't we review this play last year in the forum?

The initial foul was a flagrant elbow to the face of the shooter. Then we have a punch to the face.

Lifetime ban!

1. Technical foul to Red 5 for the kick to Gold 10's ankle.
2. Technical foul to Gold 10 for the push to Red 5's face.
3. Flagrant technical foul to Gold 10 for the punch.
4. Also considering a technical foul to Gold 9 for taunting.

I'm keeping the acts in 2 and 3 seperate.

Fouls 1 and 2 "offset".

You may want to read HFHS rule 4-18-2 some time---<i>"Fighting includes but is not limited to combative acts such as an attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act towards an opponent that causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting."</i> Also see casebook play 4.18.2. If this isn't a textbook case of that concept, I don't know what is. Red 5 kicks 10 Gold to start it. !0 Gold <b>retaliates</b> with a punch. The rules say that both should go for fighting.

My ruling is that Gold retaliated (to Red's kick) with the face push. Gold's act of the fist punch is a seperate act, and not instigated by the kick. Gold 10 took the time to pause and then had time to prepare and launch her fist to Red's face.

The [wimpy] kick was not to start a fight. It was likely because she (Red 5) thought she was fouled on the play by Gold 10. Gold's fist punch to the face is not in the same ballpark as a wimpy kick.

It doesn't matter whether you thought that the wimpy kick wasn't meant to start a fight. The <b>fact</b> is that the wimpy kick actually <b>did</b> start the fight. The severity of the instigating act, a <b>wimpy</b> kick, isn't a factor either, by rule. The case book play points that out nicely by using verbal taunting as an instigating act. If you <b>start</b> a fight--in any way--the rulesmakers want both parties punished <b>equally</b>. If Red 5 doesn't kick Gold 10, that fight doesn't happen.

You'd really let the person who instigated that mess off with a lesser punishment that the person who retaliated? In direct opposition to the intent and purpose of the "fighting" rule?

OK. We disagree completely on that one.

The fact you mention is your opinion. My opinion is otherwise. :cool: 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.

Yes.

See my interp above.

You're stretching the truth here. I did eject Gold 10, just as you did. So, there's not a complete disagreement.

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 <b>DID</b> 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, <i>"an attempt to punch, strike or kick an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made."</i>

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

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.

Agreed.

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

So Gold 10 does nothing and then you're ruling that Red 5's kick is ejectionable? :cool: 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.

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. :confused: :confused:

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 <b>attempt</b> 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.

"HFHS"? Is that the federation in Hell? :D

Absolutely.

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

True dat.