Fight scenario

[Scrapper1]

I've never had to deal with an actual fight (although I did eject a kid for throwing a punch once). Someone else asked me about this situation, so I thought I'd throw this out for people to chew on while things are slow.

A6 (bench personnel) becomes involved in an altercation with player B1, which is deemed a fight. Player B2 joins the fight. A7 and A8 leave the bench but do not participate. B6 leaves the bench but does not participate.

So we have 2 players fighting, one bench personnel fighting, and 3 bench personnel not fighting.

What technicals are assessed and how many free throws, if any, are awarded?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I've never had to deal with an actual fight (although I did eject a kid for throwing a punch once). Someone else asked me about this situation, so I thought I'd throw this out for people to chew on while things are slow.

A6 (bench personnel) becomes involved in an altercation with player B1, which is deemed a fight. Player B2 joins the fight. A7 and A8 leave the bench but do not participate. B6 leaves the bench but does not participate.

So we have 2 players fighting, one bench personnel fighting, and 3 bench personnel not fighting.

What technicals are assessed and how many free throws, if any, are awarded?

Players: Direct T, no indirects. So, that's two for B (B1 and B2).,

Bench who DO fight: Direct for each, indirect for each to coach. That's one for A (A6).

Bench who do NOT fight: Each is ejected, but it's only one indirect to the coach. It's a T to the team which has the most -- that's A.

Summing up, 2 for B, 2 for A -- these offset. No FTs are shot. Go to the arrow. Coach A has two indirects; Coach B has one indirect.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Summing up, 2 for B, 2 for A -- these offset. No FTs are shot. Go to the arrow.

I like this solution, but the summary of fouls at the back of the rulebook doesn't seem to read that way. The summary seems to say that the free throws only cancel out within the same category.

I thought I read something to that effect once before. Does that mean that each team shoots 2FTs? Because of 1 additional team member for each catagory.

Shouldn't all 6 be ejected for flagrants - fighting & leaving the confines of the bench during a fight?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I've never had to deal with an actual fight (although I did eject a kid for throwing a punch once). Someone else asked me about this situation, so I thought I'd throw this out for people to chew on while things are slow.

A6 (bench personnel) becomes involved in an altercation with player B1, which is deemed a fight. Player B2 joins the fight. A7 and A8 leave the bench but do not participate. B6 leaves the bench but does not participate.

So we have 2 players fighting, one bench personnel fighting, and 3 bench personnel not fighting.

What technicals are assessed and how many free throws, if any, are awarded?

Under NFHS rules here's what I do:
First I'm going to assume that the ball is already dead when A6 and B1 engage. That makes their fouls technicals. (If it was not, then it is a bit harder because B1 may receive a personal foul for contacting opponent A6. The book is not 100% clear on that point.)
PLAYERS on the court fighting:
a. B1 and B2 each receive flagrant Ts for fighting. Four FTs for Team A. Nothing to a coach. Two team fouls against B.
Bench personnel entering the court and fighting:
b. A6 receives a flagrant T for leaving the bench and fighting. Two FTs to Team B and one indirect to Coach A. One team foul against A.
Bench personnel entering the court but do NOT fight:
c. A7, A8, and B6 all receive flagrant Ts. Each coach gets one indirect. Two team fouls against A and one against B. Unequal number means two FTs for Team B.

Summary:
1. Six disqualifications. B1, B2, A6, A7, A8, B6.
2. Coach A has two indirect Ts. Coach B has one. Both lose the box.
3. Add three team fouls to the count for each team.
4. Award team A four FTs.
5. Award team B four FTs.
6. Award the ball at the division line to Team B.

*The NFHS is not clear on whether FTs from different categories can cancel. There is no indication that they do according to Summary section 8, but I wouldn't mind seeing a clarification from the committee which says that they can. If that were the case, then all FTs would cancel and the game would resume at the POI.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Award the ball at the division line to Team B.

That all made sense. My only question is to the quoted portion, and maybe I'm missing something obvious, but: why?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by sseltser

That all made sense. My only question is to the quoted portion, and maybe I'm missing something obvious, but: why?

Because in NFHS the penalties are administered in the order of occurrence.
The last thing that happened was the three team members leaving the bench, but not engaging in the fight. That was two members of Team A and one from Team B. Thus the final penalty is two FTs for Team B plus the ball at the division line opposite the table.

Just remember that the when there are multiple technical fouls which do not offset, the team which shoots last also gets awarded the ball.

Nevada - while you're in officiating 101 mode, why does each team shoot 4 FTs?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Nevada - while you're in officiating 101 mode, why does each team shoot 4 FTs?

From the penalty summary at the end of rule 10.

There are two players of Team B (B1 and B2) who penalized under 8a(2). That's four FTs to the opponent. 4 FTs to Team A.

There is one team member of Team A (A6) who is penalized under 8b(2). That's two FTs to the opponent. 2 FTs to Team B.

There is an unequal number of team members who are penalized under 8b(1) (A6 and A7 vs. B6). That results in two FTs for the team with fewer such offenders. Two FTs to Team B.

Since the NFHS has never stated that the FTs from these different categories can offset, each team must attempt four FTs. If the NFHS does someday decide to make a clear ruling that these FTs can cancel one another, then I would be happy to follow that.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Players: Direct T, no indirects. So, that's two for B (B1 and B2).,

Bench who DO fight: Direct for each, indirect for each to coach. That's one for A (A6).

Bench who do NOT fight: Each is ejected, but it's only one indirect to the coach. It's a T to the team which has the most -- that's A.

Summing up, 2 for B, 2 for A -- these offset. No FTs are shot. Go to the arrow. Coach A has two indirects; Coach B has one indirect.

If one were to make the FTs offset, which I'm not sure can be done, then the game would correctly resume at the POI, not by using the AP arrow.

Gotcha, thanks!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Since the NFHS has never stated that the FTs from these different categories can offset, each team must attempt four FTs. If the NFHS does someday decide to make a clear ruling that these FTs can cancel one another, then I would be happy to follow that.

Maybe you should check out case book play 10.4.5SitE and see if that's clear enough for you. You're wrong.

10.4.5 SITUATION E: A1 and B1 begin fighting and play is stopped. Substitute A6 leaves the bench area and enters the court to observe. B6 also enters the court at the same time, but B6 participates in the fight.
RULING: A1, B1, A6 and B6 are all disqualified. No free throws result from the double flagrant foul by A1 or B1 or from the simultaneous technical fouls by A6 and B6. Each head coach is is charged with one indirect technical foul. Play resumes at the point of interruption. (4-36; 10-3-9)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

*The NFHS is not clear on whether FTs from different categories can cancel. There is no indication that they do according to Summary section 8, but I wouldn't mind seeing a clarification from the committee which says that they can. If that were the case, then all FTs would cancel and the game would resume at the POI.

The FED already clarified it. Casebook play 10.4.5SitE makes it clear that FT's from different categories can cancel.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

The FED already clarified it. Casebook play 10.4.5SitE makes it clear that FT's from different categories can cancel.

JR,
That play only makes it clear that 8b(1) can cancel with 8b(2), but not that 8a can offset any penalties from 8b(1) or 8b(2). In other words, on-court players cancel on-court players, and off-court team members can cancel other off-court team members, but we don't know if we can mix the two groups--on-court with off-court.

I've asked my state rep who is on the NFHS rules committee to get a formal ruling, but in the meantime thanks for your comments.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

JR,
That play only makes it clear that 8b(1) can cancel with 8b(2), but not that 8a can offset any penalties from 8b(1) or 8b(2). In other words, on-court players cancel on-court players, and off-court team members can cancel other off-court team members, but we don't know if we can mix the two groups--on-court with off-court.

I've asked my state rep who is on the NFHS rules committee to get a formal ruling, but in the meantime thanks for your comments.

8b(1) and 8b(2) are different categories.