Hanging on the rim question

[MOFFICIAL]

Originally posted by Slider

Maybe shown to you, but not to me :-)

There are numerous instances in the rules where we only call the one part of a foul (the initial or the ultimate infraction).

For instance, during a live ball, A1 pushes B1, as the push is completed, A1 immediately follows up with a punch.

How many of you call two fouls?

If you wanted to divide time into little self-contained boxes, you could call two or more fouls on almost every foul.

Slider I would definitely call a second T and toss a kid for retaliating with a punch after a pushing foul.

[Bart Tyson]

I think time is relative. If the push is part of the fight, then Whack, he's gone. Now if he commits a common foul be pushing, i.e. push, beep, play stops, "#42 push", punch, beep #42 T.

[Slider]

Originally posted by MOFFICIAL
For instance, during a live ball, A1 pushes B1, as the push is completed, A1 immediately follows up with a punch.
---
Slider I would definitely call a second T and toss a kid for retaliating with a punch after a pushing foul. [/B]

I was envisioning a bang-bang play (literallly).

A1 extends arm on push, push puts B1 just where A1 wants him; within nano-seconds other hand comes in, BAM, pops B1.

I have a single Flagrant Personal (live ball).

BTW, each punch in a fight could be a flagrant T if you want to go nuts about calling everything.

[Edited by Slider on Feb 27th, 2002 at 12:52 PM]

[Bart Tyson]

Originally posted by Slider

BTW, each punch in a fight could be a flagrant T if you want to go nuts about calling everything.

[Edited by Slider on Feb 27th, 2002 at 12:52 PM] [/B]

I don't think so. Throwing a punch is a fight, thus Flagrant foul. Throwing several punches is a fight, thus Flagrant foul. There is not a rule that says each punch is a flagrant T.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
I don't think so. Throwing a punch is a fight, thus Flagrant foul. Throwing several punches is a fight, thus Flagrant foul. There is not a rule that says each punch is a flagrant T. [/B]

If a ref doesn't use common sense:

A1 punches B1 (T for fighting)
B1 retaliates, punches A1 (T for fighting)
A1 retaliates, punches B1 (another T for fighting)
ect.

I don't see anything in the rules to outlaw such a T party. Each punch could be a new fight.

Your common sense tells you this is ridiculous, not the rules.

[Bart Tyson]

We agree to disagree. Each punch is not a new fight. I have to believe you are the only one who thinks each punch is a new fight.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson
We agree to disagree. Each punch is not a new fight. I have to believe you are the only one who thinks each punch is a new fight.

I never said that, I said each punch isn't a new fight, but the rules permit you to say each punch is the act of a new fight.

[Bart Tyson]

Originally posted by Slider

I said each punch isn't a new fight, but the rules permit you to say each punch is the act of a new fight. [/B]

I have not seen this rule you are talking about. Soooo what is it. Hmmmmmmm.

When you get tired of looking, just come back in admit you were wrong.

[MOFFICIAL]

Slider,
I personally think that a punch should be penalized with an ejection. I would not count the punches and penalize a T on each punch. First punch bang he gets a T and ejection. If retaliation occurs with a punch bang he gets a T and ejection also.
I don't allow punching on my watch.
Peace-out

[Slider]

Originally posted by Bart Tyson

I have not seen this rule you are talking about. Soooo what is it. Hmmmmmmm.

When you get tired of looking, just come back in admit you were wrong. [/B]

Again, let me say I would NOT rule each punch as a new fight.

Now to your question, in general, if something is not illegal by the rules, then it is permitted.

Paraphrasing 4-18-1: Fighting is an attempt to punch (whether contact is made or not).

So, each punch is fighting, and each punch could be penalized seperately if you were inclined to rule that way.

Is there a rule that says I CANNOT rule that way?

[rockyroad]

How in the world did a question about hanging on the rim end up in ANOTHER argument between Slider and everyone else - about punches and fighting??? Good grief!

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Slider
Now to your question, in general, if something is not illegal by the rules, then it is permitted.

This statement from the person who gave us the gem, "The rules are inadequate to cover this situation; however, to maintain the spirit and intent of the rules, I have come up with a new term: the "drag."

So, in this post, if it's not illegal by the rules, it's permitted. Yet, in the other thread, since the rules don't cover the situation, (translation: not illegal by the rules) he creates reasons to rule it illegal.

Oh yeah! That makes sense!

Suggestion: Go back and apply your statement from this thread to the traveling thread. Maybe you'll then understand why that play wasn't traveling.

Originally posted by rockyroad
How in the world did a question about hanging on the rim end up in ANOTHER argument between Slider and everyone else - about punches and fighting??? Good grief!

Slider just has the way about him.

[ref5678]

i would give the kid one T. and charge the coach with an indirect T coach.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ref5678
i would give the kid one T. and charge the coach with an indirect T coach.

Exactly how can you give the coach an indirect T in this case,without making up rules like Slider?