Help with this one
 

On Saturday I had a very close girls game. late 2nd half, A1 fouls B1. B1 is now in the bonus. A1 then two hand shoves B1 (not hard but definately out of frustration or anger). I called a Technical. My question is, should she have been tossed??

Always a judgment call by the calling official.

Technical seems to right route

Dead ball, yes?
 

If this was a dead ball, then my edurcation on this board says we ignore the dead ball contact or it is a technical, either intentional or flagrant.

I guess the question for the officials is whether it was flagrant, and if so, the player is disqualified.

Wert.

Yeah, was it during a dead ball or live ball?

Tech seems right, unless the two-hand shove was very severe, then it could be considered flagrant possibly.

After this play just keep an eye on the player, to ensure that things don't go downhill.

As always, had to be there. But speaking generally.....

Dead ball contact is ignored unless it's intentional or flagrant. In your case it certainly sounds intentional. But it doesn't sound flagrant from your description. There was no punch thrown. There was no attempt to injure. So call the intentional T. If the coach is smart he/she will sit A1 for a good, long while. If the coach isn't that bright, and you think there may be more trouble brewing, have a very direct chat with A1 and let her know that she now has your full attention and if she steps out of line again, even a little, she'll be done for the night.

As always, just my $0.02.

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.

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.

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!!!!!:mad:

Everything changes if B1 then punches A1 right?
 

Dead ball push by A1 on B1. I rule it to warrant an Intentional Technical foul, but if B1 responds to the push by fighting, A1's "non-flagrant" push now becomes a Flagrant Technical foul because their action led to the fight.

Or, if after my 2nd whistle, B1 pushed back with a similar "don't push me" kind of push, but not an "it's on b!tch!" kind of push... then what do we have? I would think this is NOT a double technical, but rather two consecutive technicals.

Team B would shoot the one-and-one with lane cleared.
Team B would shoot the technical with lane cleared.
Team A would shoot the technical with lane cleared.
Team A has ball for throw-in at division line.

That is the way I read it, fortunately it has yet to happen to me.

How is the OP a fight??? Did not strike, punch, or kick...action did not lead to retaliation by the opponent...therefore, NOT a fight. I'm not sure that you are as clear on these points as you seem to think you are.

truerookie,
You need to review the definition of a flagrant foul. Fighting comes under that as it is deemed a flagrant act.
I don't consider a shove to be either violent or savage in nature.

From the OP: A1 then two hand shoves B1

two hand shove != strike
two hand shove != punch
two hand shove != kick

A two-hand shove is not necessarily a fighting act... In the official's judgement it could be considered flagrant, but to say that it must be considered flagrant and fighting is a severe misinterpretation of the fight rule.

To clarify, it was a dead ball. I had not taken my eyes off of either girl. Everybody in the gym seen it I think!! The coach of the offender had no problem with the "t". However, I was a little dissapointed he did not remove her from the game or even call her over for a chat!

good call -- had a similar thing happen in a game this year and my partner did what you did. Him acting on it prevented a "possible" fight had we not dealt with the shove after the foul. Ended the game with the same player who shoved getting tossed for slamming the ball after I called a foul. He did that behind me and my partner picked it up.

gotta do what you gotta do

Strike ???
 

Strike: To aim and deliver a blow, stroke, or thrust, with the hand; to come into contact forcefully

It could have been flagrant, or it could have been intentional. I guess that you had to be there.

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



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

I don't think so.

Shove ??
 

[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?

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.

Good Point
 

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.

[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.

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.

[QUOTE=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 <b>retaliates</b> to that push <b>by</b> 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.

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.

[QUOTE=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.

[quote=truerookie]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.

[QUOTE=truerookie]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 <b>only</b> 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 <b>must</b> be disqualified. It's automatic with no judgment involved. That means that <b>all</b> 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.

[QUOTE=Nevadaref]You're gonna nitpick yourself to death one day trying to be such a cunning linguist.

Whointhehell is saying that an unsporting <b>ACT</b> is the same as an unsporting <b>FOUL</b>? An unsporting act is an unsporting act. Period. The nature of that unsporting <b>act</b> determines the type of <b>foul</b> 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.

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.

[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee]
Jurassic Referee, I totally see your point of view. However, I just can't bring myself to totally agree with it.

Let's take the same situation and apply R 4-18 there is no need to apply judgement it straight to the point.

By applying 4-19-4 where an official has to use judgement and treat the push as not severe and later on in the game the same two players get tangle up again now that said official have to penalize both players for the earlier situation and I don't totally agree with that.

My take is when we have a rule which is straight to the point like 4-18 use it. Let's leave judgement out of it in a situation like this.

Not saying your judgement stinks :)

Hold on there. You're completely dropping key words in the defintion of strike.... to come into contact forcefully. It's how the contact is initiated that makes it a strike. If I softly put my hand on someone and then use it to shove them, it may be forceful contact but it is NOT a strike. A strike is like a punch but may be with an open hand, arm, etc.

Already have. A player's <b>act</b> determines the <b>foul</b>. A deliberate push in an opponent's face, for example, is an unsporting <b>act</b>. Whether that push occurred during a live or dead ball determines whether the <b>foul</b> to be called is an intentional or flagrant personal foul or an intentional or flagrant technical foul.

One act--->two different possible types of fouls.

[QUOTE=truerookie]1) That's cool. I'm just giving you my opinion.

2) If you apply R4-18 to <b>all</b> pushes, then you have to throw <b>all</b> players out for </b>all</b> pushes. There's no judgment involved. If a player pushes someone, he/she is gone. That means that you're tossing a kid for a quick, one-handed push that might be unsporting but is not flagrant. If you use R4-19-4 though, you can call the foul as determined by the severity of the act, using your judgment.

The purpose and intent of rule 4-18-2 is to penalize the instigator of a fight equally with the player responding.

[QUOTE=truerookie]Except for the little nitpicky fact that 4-18 does NOT apply to this shove...it was not a fight by NFHS definitions, and no matter how much you want it to be it will never be a fight by NFHS definition. If you call that a fight and follow the proper procedure of ejecting the player and recording it as a fight in the book, I guarantee you that the school will appeal and the State will uphold the appeal and allow the player to participate in the next game...IOW, they will rule that your ejection for "fighting" was an incorrect application of the rules. If you call the push a flagrant act and eject the player for it, fantastic - there will be no basis for an appeal. But don't misapply the rules to fit your definitions - change your definitions to fit the rules.

[QUOTE=rockyroad]I'm not of the mold to misapply the rules to fit my definitions. I was just having a discussion with Jurassic Referee to better understand spirit and intent of some rules. You can read rules all day and think you fully understand the spirit and intent until you encounter a different perspectives outside of your own perspective. It WAS just a discussion I enjoyed having with Jurassic Ref. ;)

[QUOTE=truerookie]Please don't dismiss what Rocky is telling you as not being relevant to the discussion though. In basketball, there is an <b>expected</b> and <b>accepted</b> call. Rocky is telling you that concept is applicable in this case. My experience is that everything that he said is correct.

Rocky is a very experienced and knowledgeable <i>veterano</i>. He's got a Womens D2 National Championship tournament on his resume. He knows what he's talking about. We're all lucky(that includes me) that we've got more than a few like him on this forum.

[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee]Jurassic Referee, I wasn't dismissing anything. I was just communicating to rockyroad that the discussion we (u and i) was having actually brought to my attention a different perspective on the intent and spirit of some rules 4-18; 4-19 and how they can be applied that's all.

[QUOTE=truerookie]I realized that. I was just trying to add that Rocky's perspective should be given consideration also.

[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee]Jurassic Referee, I appreciate that. I'm aware of who I can take constructive criticism from or not. :)

[QUOTE=truerookie]So does this mean that my constructive criticism is no good?? Even though it was the same thing that Jurassic was telling you? Hmmm...interesting. Might I ask "Why?"

[QUOTE=rockyroad]Shut up.

[QUOTE=Jurassic Referee]OK...:p

[QUOTE=rockyroad]No, your criticism is fine Rockyroad your not in the or not catagory.;)

[QUOTE=truerookie]Whew!! Had me worried there for a minute. Thought maybe I was headed to hell with JR and M&M Guy!:o :D

Anyway, I would just be very careful about labeling something as a fight because of the fact that it is given it's own section in the rule books...and believe me, I am speaking from experience.:o

To be honest, the dialogue brought a new outlook on those situations for me.

Hey! How'd I get drug into this?!?

Btw, I agree with JR. :p

Why can't you guys get the quote feature right? :p