Clarification on fighting technicals

[Scrapper1]

We've had discussions about whether certain technical fouls offset during a fight. For example, if A6, A7 and B6 come off the benches and only observe, but B7 leaves the bench and participates. In this case, there's an uneven number of non-participants and an uneven number of participants. Do all the technicals offset? Or do they only offset within each category.

Not sure why I never saw this before, but 10.4.5 Situation A in the new casebook addresses it almost exactly, stating that no free throws are awarded and play is resumed at the POI. This is marked with an asterisk, to indicate that it's a new ruling, but there's an almost identical ruling in last year's book. It's 10.4.5 Situation E.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

We've had discussions about whether certain technical fouls offset during a fight. For example, if A6, A7 and B6 come off the benches and only observe, but B7 leaves the bench and participates. In this case, there's an uneven number of non-participants and an uneven number of participants. Do all the technicals offset? Or do they only offset within each category.

Not sure why I never saw this before, but 10.4.5 Situation A in the new casebook addresses it almost exactly, stating that no free throws are awarded and play is resumed at the POI. This is marked with an asterisk, to indicate that it's a new ruling, but there's an almost identical ruling in last year's book. It's 10.4.5 Situation E.

First of all that case play is EXACTLY the same as last year. There has been NO change in the wording of it at all, only the Situation letter has changed. There was no reason for the NFHS to put an asterisk in front of it.

Secondly, that play ruling is not helpful to answering whether or not the technicals from different categories may offset because in the example that it provides there are an equal number of on court fighters and team members leaving the bench. All of the team members leaving the bench are also considered to have done so simultaneously and that is the reason provided for cancelling the penalties when only one of them engages in the fight.

Unfortunately, the NFHS failed to provide clear guidance for us on this issue again this season.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

First of all that case play is EXACTLY the same as last year. There has been NO change in the wording of it at all, only the Situation letter has changed.

Well, shoot. I even went and looked in last year's book and I guess I just overlooked it.

Secondly, that play ruling is not helpful to answering whether or not the technicals from different categories may offset because in the example that it provides there are an equal number of on court fighters and team members leaving the bench.

I disagree. The offenders from different categories (team members who leave the bench and do not fight; and team members who leave the bench and fight) definitely are not equal. If they did not offset across categories, we would have to shoot free throws, regardless of when they left the bench area. Since the ruling is that there are no free throws attempted, the offenders from different categories clearly offset each other.

[Back In The Saddle]

Could they have obfuscated this any more? It would be very helpful if the Fed issued a step-by-step process for determining how many free throws.

I've been contemplating the whole issue of if and/or how penalties offset across categories/types of offenders. What follows is the best I can deduce.

The case addresses the fighting players separate from the bench leavers. While it is true that the case deals with flagrant personal fouls, I can find no indication that flagrant technicals for fighting would be handled differently. Because there are a corresponding number of fighting players from each team, there are no free throws. If there were an unequal number, we'd offset the throws, awarding the offended team the difference.

As for whether to offset penalties between fighting players and bench leavers, both the case and the summary of penalties deal with them separately. The case play further indicates the fighting players results in a double foul, while the bench leavers are a simultaneous foul. The summary also prescribes double fouls for corresponding numbers of fighting players. That sure smells like a false something-or-other type foul to me, each being penalized separately and in the order it occurred.

As for offsetting within the non-fighting and fighting bench leaver groups, a similar, but more complex formula is indicated.

• Sum each team's "bench leavers", regardless of whether they fought. (NOTE: The summary of penalties may appear to separate fighters and non-fighters into separate penalty groups. But the case play clearly reaches its ruling of no throws and POI based on the equal numbers of bench leavers, irrespective of whether they fought, as illustrated by scenario c.)
• If there are corresponding numbers from each team, shoot no free throws, resume at POI.
• Otherwise it gets ugly and murky. The best I can infer and/or deduce from the inscrutable chicken scratches is this:
• Sum the free throws each team "owes" the other: Two throws max for any number of bench leavers (other than HC) who did not fight, two throws if the HC leaves the bench unbeckoned, two throws for each bench leaver who fights.
• If the numbers are equal, shoot no free throws, resume at POI.
• If the numbers are unequal, the team "owed" the most throws is the offended team. They shoot the difference (or offset) between the two numbers then receive a throw-in at midcourt. (NOTE: That these throws offset at all is not crystal clear, but must be inferred from phrases like "offended team" and "for each additional person leaving the bench" in the summary.)

Additionally, all bench leavers receive a flagrant foul which is also added to the team foul count. The HC receives a maximum of one indirect technical for all non-fighting bench leavers, and one indirect for each fighting bench leaver. A HC who leaves the bench unbeckoned would additionally be charged with a flagrant technical and be ejected, and the team is charged with a team foul. These flagrant fouls, team fouls, and indirect technical fouls do not offset and each is charged.

What a mess!

If you disagree with my conclusion, please share your conclusion and how you arrived at it. Like I said, this is only the best I've been able to deduce.

[grunewar]

Can any of you recount for us a situation(s) where you and your partners had to caucus to sort out this kind of mess? i.e - ok, we had two fighters on the court, one come off the bench for blue, three for red, one coach, etc. How long did it take to sort it out? Recommendations if we get caught in the situation? etc. It sounds like adding up fouls, sorting numbers and ejected players, etc. would be a real challenge. Just curious. Thanks.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Can any of you recount for us a situation(s) where you and your partners had to caucus to sort out this kind of mess? i.e - ok, we had two fighters on the court, one come off the bench for blue, three for red, one coach, etc. How long did it take to sort it out? Recommendations if we get caught in the situation? etc. It sounds like adding up fouls, sorting numbers and ejected players, etc. would be a real challenge. Just curious. Thanks.

What if you're in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the fight breaks out during the postgame handshakes, but before the referee approves the score?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What if you're in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the fight breaks out during the postgame handshakes, but before the referee approves the score?

The score IS approved before the handshake. So all the referee need to is locate some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the fight.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

• Sum each team's "bench leavers", regardless of whether they fought. (NOTE: The summary of penalties may appear to separate fighters and non-fighters into separate penalty groups. But the case play clearly reaches its ruling of no throws and POI based on the equal numbers of bench leavers, irrespective of whether they fought, as illustrated by scenario c.)

This first bullet is wrong. If A1 and A2 leave but do not fight, then B gets two FTs. If, in addition, B1 and B2 leave and fight, A gets four FTs. OFfset where you can (4-2=2) and A will shoot 2 FTs and get the ball.

The rest of your post seemed correct.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

This first bullet is wrong. If A1 and A2 leave but do not fight, then B gets two FTs. If, in addition, B1 and B2 leave and fight, A gets four FTs. OFfset where you can (4-2=2) and A will shoot 2 FTs and get the ball.

The rest of your post seemed correct.

That's what I used to think as well. But that doesn't seem to square with Scrappy's case play ruling, in particular scenario c. In it you have two non-fighters leaving for A, a non-fighter and a fighter leaving for B. It would seem that A would get 4 free throws and B would get 2.

However, the ruling says: "No free throws are awarded for the simultaneous technical fouls as the number of bench personnel leaving the bench and the penalties are the same for both teams."

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

That's what I used to think as well. But that doesn't seem to square with Scrappy's case play ruling, in particular scenario c. In it you have two non-fighters leaving for A, a non-fighter and a fighter leaving for B. It would seem that A would get 4 free throws and B would get 2.

However, the ruling says: "No free throws are awarded for the simultaneous technical fouls as the number of bench personnel leaving the bench and the penalties are the same for both teams."

Sigh.

First, offset the number leaving the bench who don't fight. 2 for A is more than 1 for B, so A gets a penalty (one penalty only, here -- even if it was 10 for A and 1 for B, it's only one penalty)

Then, offset the number leaving and fighting. 0 for A, 1 for B == 1 penalty for B (here, it's one per difference -- if it was zero for A and 10 for B, it would be 10 penalties).

Do the same for Players fighting, and coaches leaving.

Then, offset the penalties across the categories.

1 penalty for A, 1 penalty for B == no FTs. (in the parenthetical example, it would be 1 penalty for A, 10 penalties for B == 18 FTs for A)

[slow whistle]

[QUOTE=Back In The Saddle;540700]That's what I used to think as well. But that doesn't seem to square with Scrappy's case play ruling, in particular scenario c. In it you have two non-fighters leaving for A, a non-fighter and a fighter leaving for B. It would seem that A would get 4 free throws and B would get 2.

However, the ruling says: "No free throws are awarded for the simultaneous technical fouls as the number of bench personnel leaving the bench and the penalties are the same for both teams."[/QUOTE

I agree with you , this one confused me as well...in the case play we have no free throws even though it would seem that there is an uneven number of penalties since only one of the four fought. Are they really saying that regardless of whether they fight or not, if you leave the bench area you are getting one flagrant technical and getting tossed, so if you leave AND fight you don't get an additional flagrant technical, still just the one? It seems inconsistent since there is a technical foul penalty listed for each offense (leaving and fighting)....obviously the fact that B7 fought impacts the number if indirect t's going to the coach (two for team B coach and one for team A coach) but you don't shoot ft's based on the number of indirects...not saying the above is correct, just trying to fill in the gaps..appreciate the back and forth to help clarify this one..

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Sigh.

First, offset the number leaving the bench who don't fight. 2 for A is more than 1 for B, so A gets a penalty (one penalty only, here -- even if it was 10 for A and 1 for B, it's only one penalty)

Then, offset the number leaving and fighting. 0 for A, 1 for B == 1 penalty for B (here, it's one per difference -- if it was zero for A and 10 for B, it would be 10 penalties).

Do the same for Players fighting, and coaches leaving.

Then, offset the penalties across the categories.

1 penalty for A, 1 penalty for B == no FTs. (in the parenthetical example, it would be 1 penalty for A, 10 penalties for B == 18 FTs for A)

That's what I always thought Bob, but how do you explain casebook play 10.4.5 situation A c)? It says no free throws, go to POI and there are an uneven number of penalties?

[slow whistle]

If you tell me the casebook play is wrong I'll feel much better

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

That's what I always thought Bob, but how do you explain casebook play 10.4.5 situation A c)? It says no free throws, go to POI and there are an uneven number of penalties?

I just explained it.

There are an equal number of penalties (meaning FTs) on each side, so they offset.

And, yes, the penalty for being the ONLY team member to leave and not fight is the same as the penalty for being the ONLY team member to leave and fight.

Doesn't seem right, perhaps, and you're not the first person to point that out, but it is the way it is.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I just explained it.

There are an equal number of penalties (meaning FTs) on each side, so they offset.

And, yes, the penalty for being the ONLY team member to leave and not fight is the same as the penalty for being the ONLY team member to leave and fight.

Doesn't seem right, perhaps, and you're not the first person to point that out, but it is the way it is.

ok I see it now in your note above, thanks!