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.

In this case A1's action would have to consitute a fighting act when judged by itself, without consideration to the reaction of B1, in order for him to be charged with fighting because his foul is NOT a technical foul for an unsporting act as is specified by the retaliation rule.

Perhaps your single hair is in your eyes. I never said that a punch wasn't fighting. I merely said that I can't state whether or not the act was fighting because I wasn't there. So I said that the official should strongly consider a flagrant. However, what one offical judges to be a punch another may deem to be merely a shove. Is a half punch fighting or does it have to be a full punch?
BTW a closed fist does not mean that a blow is a punch. I've seen many screeners extend their arms and deliver a blow to an opponent while having their hands in closed fists and no sane individual would reasonably think that those were punches.

I'm not sure what the point of your post is.

All Rut and I are saying that *if* A1 had instigated the fight he would be charged with fighting. And btw, there is no requirement that a player must have been charged with an unsporting act prior to a determinatin that he instigated a fight. The unsporting act can be and typically is charged and penalized after the fact.

Puh-leeze.

The OP said a punch was thrown. That, in and of itself, constitutes fighting. You're now spinning so hard you could make the clintons dizzy.

:rolleyes:

Speaking of spinning...;)

The point of my post is very clear. It definitely makes a difference HOW A1 instigated the fighting action of B1. If it wasn't through NON-contact, then 4-18-2 can't be invoked and ONLY 4-18-1 can be used to decide whether or not A1's act constitutes fighting. B1's response is NOT a consideration at all. If you don't understand that, then you are misapplying the rule.

Bullsh1t.

Go look at the wording of the rule. You're wrong. An unsporting foul is defined in 4-19-14 as noncontact. Also two years ago following an incident in a game that I worked my state office asked for clarification from Mary Struckhoff on this point and that is exactly what she wrote in her response.

It's always tough to tell old guys anything.

Let's just agree to disagree.

I'll keep doing it the right way and you'll keep spouting bullsh1t.

So you're right and the NFHS office is full of it? :rolleyes:

Notice I didn't say anything about the nfhs, Mrs. Clinton.

Unless you have anything of substance to say I'll be on my way.

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/read.gif http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...images/bye.gif

I'd have to see it, but either it was a punch or it wasn't. If it was a punch, it's a flagrant. NFHS wants zero tolerance on this stuff. If it wasn't a punch, an unsporting tech would be the way to go.

Obviously, a double foul isn't the way to go.

What's wrong with your post is that a punch was thrown and you said the only option is a technical foul. No, the only option when a punch is thrown is a flagrant technical foul.

Whether it's a "half hearted punch" or a haymaker, it's a punch. He chose the word "punch," not me. If it's a punch, it's a flagrant T.

Well, I appreciate the feedback. The controversy here mirrors my own indecision about whether to call the flagrant T.

I will say that officials in my area are reluctant to call ANY T, much less one that involves paperwork. The varsity guys told me I handled it well, and the coaches didn't complain.

The punch was indeed closed-fist, but "pulled," so it never reached its target -- as if the kid changed his mind immediately. I was also whistling the foul as he was winding up. Still, I understand that his behavior probably warranted a flagrant foul.

The episode took me by surprise, which as Jim Evans always says is the official's worst enemy. I think that I have been too reluctant to deal with aggressiveness, and that prevailing customs here have affected my judgment. At this point, I agree that I should have called a flagrant T, and I'll try to get it in the future.

Nevada: I appreciate very much your vote of confidence in my judgment; however, I think that in this instance I was mistaken. I agree, in principle, that there are borderline cases of aggressive behavior that would not warrant a flagrant foul; on reflection, this was probably not one of them.