Help with this one

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Just amazing:

Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting inlcudes, 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. Clear to me up to this point.

She did not strike, punch, or kick her. She shoved her.

art 2. An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act toward an opponent that causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting. Hasn't change; still clear to me.

The opponent did not retaliate by fighting, did she? No, she did not, so this isn't applicable either.

What the OP describe is fighting by feds rules. It does not state how severe it must be.

I'm not for keeping a player in the game for an senseless act on their behalf and I wouldn't encourage others to take that same approach when it comes to FIGHTING!!!!!

I don't think so.

[BillyMac]

[QUOTE=BktBallRefShe did not strike, punch, or kick her. She shoved her.[/QUOTE]

Strike: To come into contact forcefully.

How can a "shove" not be considered "forceful contact"?

Since the defination of "strike" includes "contact forcefully", then this must be considered a "strike".

However, again, I guess that you had to be there?

[tomegun]

BillyMac, are you saying a shove should be considered striking and a fight? If so, that would open a lot of contact up to being considered striking. Would that mean an intentional push that is called intentional at the end of a game would now be considered fighting and the player would be ejected? I'm trying to understand what you are saying. I'm actually trying to understand how a push becomes a fight.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by tomegun

BillyMac, are you saying a shove should be considered striking and a fight? If so, that would open a lot of contact up to being considered striking. Would that mean an intentional push that is called intentional at the end of a game would now be considered fighting and the player would be ejected? I'm trying to understand what you are saying. I'm actually trying to understand how a push becomes a fight.

Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting inlcudes, 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.

tomegun: You do make a good point about the intentional push, which most of us would simply call an intentional foul, not flagrant. Good point.

FYI: I've called two flagrant technical fouls in the past three seasons. The most recent one was in a girls varsity game where one player, after a held ball was called, slapped an opponent. The other also involved a held ball, in a boys varsity game, where after getting up, one player pushed his opponent with two hands squarely on the opponent's chest, sending the opponent back about a foot. Unfortunately, in both cases, I gave the baseball-style, "You're out of here" signal, which I know is not an approved NFHS signal, but for some reason, I did it anyway.

[truerookie]

[quote=BktBallRef][/b]


She did not strike, punch, or kick her. She shoved her. So what does that have to do with anything she made contact and by Fed guidelines that is fighting. So, I guess if she attempted to strike, punch or kick her and did not make contact that would be ok too?


Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts. A Shove is a combative act.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Strike: To come into contact forcefully.

How can a "shove" not be considered "forceful contact"?

It is possible to lay ones hand on something quite gently, and then give it a shove. To strike something and then follow through might result in a shove, but the two terms are not interchangeable.

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE=truerookie]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

[/b]

She did not strike, punch, or kick her. She shoved her. So what does that have to do with anything she made contact and by Fed guidelines that is fighting. So, I guess if she attempted to strike, punch or kick her and did not make contact that would be ok too?


Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts. A Shove is a combative act.

Rook, you won't get one knowledgeable official on this forum to agree with you. That should tell you something.

A push by itself is not considered "fighting" unless an opponent retaliates to that push by fighting. That's rule 4-18-2. If there was no retaliation, but you felt that the push was flagrant in nature, you penalize it as a flagrant personal or a flagrant technical foul(depending on whether the ball was dead or not) under rule 4-19-4.

You not only have to know the rules definitions; you have to understand them to apply them properly.

[Nevadaref]

This is how the NFHS wants this play called.

TECHNICAL FOUL CONTACT
10.3.8 SITUATION: B1 fouls A1 during an unsuccessful try. While the calling official is reporting the foul, A1 pushes B1 into another player. RULING: Intentional contact while the ball is dead constitutes an intentional technical foul. If other dead-ball contact is not intentional or flagrant, it should be ignored. The foul by A1 creates a false double-foul situation.

[truerookie]

[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Rook, you won't get one knowledgeable official on this forum to agree with you. That should tell you something.

A push by itself is not considered "fighting" unless an opponent retaliates to that push by fighting. That's rule 4-18-2. If there was no retaliation, but you felt that the push was flagrant in nature, you penalize it as a flagrant personal or a flagrant technical foul(depending on whether the ball was dead or not) under rule 4-19-4.

You not only have to know the rules definitions; you have to understand them to apply them properly.

Jurassic Referee, I understand your points. I just don't see at this point why there must be retaliation for it to be considered fighting when it is clear that the pusher shoved the pushee.

As I read it the act itself can still be a cause for ejection in the end. Rather, it falls under 4-18-2 or 4-19-4. The pusher can take an early shower.

[Nevadaref]

[quote=truerookie]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Jurassic Referee, I understand your points. I just don't see at this point why there must be retaliation for it to be considered fighting when it is clear that the pusher shoved the pushee.

As I read it the act itself can still be a cause for ejection in the end. Rather, it falls under 4-18-2 or 4-19-4. The pusher can take an early shower.

Rook,
Take a look at the case play that I just quoted for you. The NFHS is directly telling you that a push isn't a flagrant act, rather it warrants an intentional.

It doesn't get any clearer than that.

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE=truerookie]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) I just don't see at this point why there must be retaliation for it to be considered fighting when it is clear that the pusher shoved the pushee.

2) As I read it the act itself can still be a cause for ejection in the end. Rather, it falls under 4-18-2 or 4-19-4. The pusher can take an early shower.

1) A "push" isn't listed in R4-18-1 as being one of the acts that are deemed as automatically being a "fighting" foul. And R4-19-2 is telling us that any unsporting act other than a "strike, punch or kick" at an opponent can also be deemed a "fighting" foul, but only if there is retaliation to that unsporting act. Iow, a push can't be deemed "fighting" if there is no retaliation.

2) And you are reading that correctly, as per rule 4-19-4. That's the point. However, rule 4-19-4 is the applicable rule to use for a "push" without retaliation. You can't apply R4-18 and call a push as being "fighting" unless there actually is retaliation for that push.

The difference in choosing the correct rule to use is that if you try to apply rule 4-18, it means that the player must be disqualified. It's automatic with no judgment involved. That means that all pushes are flagrant. If you correctly use R4--19-4, you now can use your judgment as to whether the pushing act actually is flagrant or not. And I think that you will agree that not all pushes are automatically flagrant.

Make any more sense now?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) A "push" isn't listed in R4-18-1 as being one of the acts that are deemed as automatically being a "fighting" foul. And R4-19-2 is telling us that any unsporting act other than a "strike, punch or kick" at an opponent can also be deemed a "fighting" foul, but only if there is retaliation to that unsporting act. Iow, a push can't be deemed "fighting" if there is no retaliation.

2) And you are reading that correctly, as per rule 4-19-4. That's the point. However, rule 4-19-4 is the applicable rule to use for a "push" without retaliation. You can't apply R4-18 and call a push as being "fighting" unless there actually is retaliation for that push.

The difference in choosing the correct rule to use is that if you try to apply rule 4-18, it means that the player must be disqualified. It's automatic with no judgment involved. That means that all pushes are flagrant. If you correctly use R4--19-4, you now can use your judgment as to whether the pushing act actually is flagrant or not. And I think that you will agree that not all pushes are automatically flagrant.

Make any more sense now?

JR,
I don't agree. The contact by the first player must be deemed fighting on its own. The second article clearly says unsporting act. According to the definition of an unsporting foul, it is a noncontact foul. So retaliation isn't applicable here.

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE=Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

JR,
I don't agree. The contact by the first player must be deemed fighting on its own. The second article clearly says unsporting ACT. According to the definition of an unsporting FOUL, it is a noncontact foul. So retaliation isn't applicable here.

You're gonna nitpick yourself to death one day trying to be such a cunning linguist.

Whointhehell is saying that an unsporting ACT is the same as an unsporting FOUL? An unsporting act is an unsporting act. Period. The nature of that unsporting act determines the type of foul to be called.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

You're gonna nitpick yourself to death one day trying to be such a cunning linguist.

Whointhehell is saying that an unsporting ACT is the same as an unsporting FOUL? An unsporting act is an unsporting act. Period. The nature of that unsporting act determines the type of foul to be called.

Look at 4-19-14. The words conduct and behavior both appear there, and that rule specifies noncontact. Act is basically synonymous with those words. Are you going to draw a distinction between action, conduct, behavior and foul?

Also, I had this situation arise in a game a three years ago. My state office checked with the NFHS for clarification and that was the response.

My opinion is that the NFHS needs to change the wording of the rule. It is poorly written. It should apply to the scenario that you discuss, but as written it doesn't.

[Nevadaref]

Right now the rule is to cover A1 taunting B1 and B1 responding by punching him. That is 4.18.2 in the case book.