Double Foul: True or False?

[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

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?