Double Foul: True or False?

[Indianaref]

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.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

A punch thrown is fighting, period.

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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.

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Bullsh1t.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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?

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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.

[Nevadaref]

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I had a BJV game Friday that had an ugly moment in it. We're down by A's basket in the second quarter, and partner passes on a push by A1. Shot goes up, and A1 pushes B1 again, harder, under the basket (and in my primary). As I whistle that foul, B1 turns and throws a half-hearted punch toward A1, which he fails to land (A1 has backed away).

I ended up calling a double foul, but as I think about it, I probably should have called an unsporting T on B1 for the punch (attempt). I also realize that the punch attempt qualifies as fighting, and the T could have been flagrant. My judgment was (and remains) that the situation didn't warrant the flagrant T; if it makes any difference, I didn't have any problem with either of these two for the rest of the game.

Questions:
1. What would you have called?
2. If I had called the T on B1 after the foul on A1, how would that be administered? That would have been a false double foul, correct?
3. What do you think about calling a flagrant T in this situation? In general?

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Huh? What's "Wrong" with my response? I just pointed out to jdw that the foul by B1 could not be a personal foul, but instead must be technical.
I wrote the same fouls as you did, except without the word "flagrant" in front of technical because I believe that is for the official on the court to decide. He is the only one who can judge whether or not the act was flagrant. I wasn't there and thus can't say. I can only offer to "strongly consider it" as I wrote in my previous post.

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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

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.

[mbyron]

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.