Double Foul: True or False?

[Dan_ref]

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.

But if you want to take an attitude about it, I can quote the OP.


I guess that makes you the one who is "wrong."

As I whistle that foul, B1 turns and throws a half-hearted punch toward A1,

That makes you and the OP both wrong.

A punch thrown is fighting, period.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

That makes you and the OP both wrong.

A punch thrown is fighting, period.

You cannot ignore the punch. From the OP that sounds clearly like a punch that was missed.

And if you feel like the player that had the punch thrown in their direction helped instigate the situation, then you can get them too for fighting. You do not need to throw a punch to be accused of fighting.

PEace

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You cannot ignore the punch. From the OP that sounds clearly like a punch that was missed.

And if you feel like the player that had the punch thrown in their direction helped instigate the situation, then you can get them too for fighting. You do not need to throw a punch to be accused of fighting.

PEace

Good point. Depending on what A1 did to provoke the punch we could have 2 ejections for fighting.

[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.

[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.

[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

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

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.