NFHS Case Play 10.4.5 Situation E page 84

[Robert E. Harrison]

A1 and B1 begin fighting and play is stopped. Substitute A6 leaves the bench area and enters the court to observe. B6 also enters the court at the same time, but B6 actually participates in the fight. Ruling: A1, B1, A6 and B6 are all disqualified. No free throws result from the double flagrant foul by A1 and B1 or from the simultaneous technical fouls by A6 and B6. Each head coach is charged with one indirect technical foul. Play resumes at the point of interuption. (4-36;10-3-9)

Why is one sub B6 allowed to fight with no penalty -- while sub A6 does not fight and gets the same punishment as if he had participated in the fight?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Robert E. Harrison

A1 and B1 begin fighting and play is stopped. Substitute A6 leaves the bench area and enters the court to observe. B6 also enters the court at the same time, but B6 actually participates in the fight. Ruling: A1, B1, A6 and B6 are all disqualified. No free throws result from the double flagrant foul by A1 and B1 or from the simultaneous technical fouls by A6 and B6. Each head coach is charged with one indirect technical foul. Play resumes at the point of interuption. (4-36;10-3-9)

Why is one sub B6 allowed to fight with no penalty -- while sub A6 does not fight and gets the same punishment as if he had participated in the fight?

Why think there's no penalty for B6?

[Splute]

Why do you say without penalty? B6 is disqualified. I understand your point that the offenses do not seem equal when one fights and one does not. However, I believe the NFHS is trying to prevent players from even entering the court by assessing this penalty, regardless of fighting. I concur with that logic.....

[Robert E. Harrison]

Because of B6 fights and A6 does not fight and the penalty is the same for both teams. I guess if I had this situation come up last year I would have awarded 2 free throws to Team A and the ball out of bounds at the mid court line opposite the table due to inequality of B6 fighting. It appears to me that one team gets away with something in this scenario where all other scenarios are dealt with evenly.

Now we have a case play that tells us how to handle this specific situation.

Originally Posted by Robert E. Harrison

Now we have a case play that tells us how to handle this specific situation.

We've always had the rule though.
10-5 Leave the confines of the bench during a fight or when a fight may break out.

PENALTY: Flagrant foul, disqualifaication of the individual offender...

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Robert E. Harrison

Because of B6 fights and A6 does not fight and the penalty is the same for both teams. I guess if I had this situation come up last year I would have awarded 2 free throws to Team A and the ball out of bounds at the mid court line opposite the table due to inequality of B6 fighting. It appears to me that one team gets away with something in this scenario where all other scenarios are dealt with evenly.

Not necessarily. It's a DQ to fight or to leave the bench during a fight.

But in my state, the players who fought are also going to be suspended for 2 games. B6 will not.

Now we have a case play that tells us how to handle this specific situation.

Actually, that case play has been there for a long time.

[Adam]

Really, the only difference in penalties is how many indirect Ts the head coach gets. For fighters, he gets one for each bench player who actually fights. For non-fighters, he gets a total of one for all bench players who go to the court but don't fight.

If only one bench player gets up for each team, it's not going to matter, penalty-wise. And if you don't offset the penalties, you have to give two free throws to each team.

[mbyron]

Your actual question seems to be: why are the penalties for A6 and B6 the same, when only B6 fights?

Answer: FED wants bench players on the bench during fights. Leaving the bench during a fight receives the same penalty in order to deter that behavior and to prevent the possibility that A6 gets up to "observe" and ends up fighting.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Robert E. Harrison

Why is one sub B6 allowed to fight with no penalty -- while sub A6 does not fight and gets the same punishment as if he had participated in the fight?

I agree that it seems strange. The penalties are more severe for leaving-and-fighting than for just leaving. It's just that "the math" works out so the total is equal in this one case, and it's been this way for many years.

What would you have different?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

What would you have different?

I guess I need to review this whole issue, but...

I thought when the dust settled you divided everybody into three categories:

• Players who fight
• Bench personnel who fight
• Bench personnel who leave the bench, but do not fight.

And then the free throws only offset within each group. So I would have expected there to be free throws for both A6 and B6, since they were in different categories. I guess I am wrong?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I guess I am wrong?

The question mark means ...... ?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I guess I need to review this whole issue, but...

I thought when the dust settled you divided everybody into three categories:

• Players who fight
• Bench personnel who fight
• Bench personnel who leave the bench, but do not fight.

And then the free throws only offset within each group. So I would have expected there to be free throws for both A6 and B6, since they were in different categories. I guess I am wrong?

They're not really different categories. They're both technical fouls, therefor, simultaneous technicals.
The only difference between them is the application of indirect technical fouls on the head coach.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I guess I need to review this whole issue, but...

I thought when the dust settled you divided everybody into three categories:

• Players who fight
• Bench personnel who fight
• Bench personnel who leave the bench, but do not fight.

And then the free throws only offset within each group. So I would have expected there to be free throws for both A6 and B6, since they were in different categories. I guess I am wrong?

You offset across categories as well. add up all the 'FTs to be shot" on one side and the "FTs to be shot" on the other and offset. Only shoot the difference.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Robert E. Harrison

A1 and B1 begin fighting and play is stopped. Substitute A6 leaves the bench area and enters the court to observe. B6 also enters the court at the same time, but B6 actually participates in the fight. Ruling: A1, B1, A6 and B6 are all disqualified. No free throws result from the double flagrant foul by A1 and B1 or from the simultaneous technical fouls by A6 and B6. Each head coach is charged with one indirect technical foul. Play resumes at the point of interuption. (4-36;10-3-9)

Why is one sub B6 allowed to fight with no penalty -- while sub A6 does not fight and gets the same punishment as if he had participated in the fight?

Metaphorically and psychologically - When viewing a mountain from the bottom it is a long way up there, yet when viewing the same mountain from the top it is a long way down there. Is A6 getting the same punishment as B6 or is B6 getting the same punishment as A6? Maybe A6 is getting the more sever punishment as opposed to B6 getting the lighter punishment. It all depends on your frame of reference.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I guess I need to review this whole issue, but...

I thought when the dust settled you divided everybody into three categories:

• Players who fight
• Bench personnel who fight
• Bench personnel who leave the bench, but do not fight.

And then the free throws only offset within each group. So I would have expected there to be free throws for both A6 and B6, since they were in different categories. I guess I am wrong?

No, you are not wrong. The three different categories need to be taken separately and the FTs tallied up. However, if any of the bench leaving happens at approximately the same time, then those Ts get classified as simultaneous fouls and thus the FTs would cancel. That is the case in the cited caseplay. However, if B6 and A6 had come off the bench clearly with one following the other, perhaps in response to observing the other run out there and hit someone, then both penalties are assessed in the order of occurrence.

It is easier and probably better to consider them simultaneous unless they were obviously not.