What do you have?

[rlarry]

Thanks for the clarification Snags

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by CoachP

I agree with Mark.

Dribbler/passer was airborne before defender "went low"
Defender knew he couldn't get LGP, so it looks like he tried to avoid contact by awkwardly falling.
There was no contact.

Nothing.

I'd look at that again. Why would A1 go airborne to begin with? This is no awkward attempt of avoidance. Notice the concern for player he undercut, and I detect a slight smirk on his face. If I 'have nothing' on that play in a Varsity game in my state, they'd revoke my license.

If you didn't think he touched him, I'd use 4-19-14 an unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical, dishonorable, conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by CoachP

There was no contact. Nothing.

So, did you talk to your son after the game about goofing around during his free throws?

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

So, did you talk to your son after the game about goofing around during his free throws?

Nice!!!!!!!!!

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

So, did you talk to your son after the game about goofing around during his free throws?

Actually, I thought that video was up in your leagues area....all the Adam Morrison lookalikes....

Originally Posted by fullor30

I'd look at that again. Why would A1 go airborne to begin with? This is no awkward attempt of avoidance. Notice the concern for player he undercut, and I detect a slight smirk on his face. If I 'have nothing' on that play in a Varsity game in my state, they'd revoke my license.

If you didn't think he touched him, I'd use 4-19-14 an unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical, dishonorable, conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play

Agree to disagree, I guess. I slowed it down frame by frame, (as well as youtube allows) . If anything, it looks like defender starts to take a charge, realized he wasn't going to get it, stopped and turned his back and started to duck...falling away from iminent contact. Meanwhile, dribbler, assuming there is going to be a train wreck, changes direction, then leaps to make a one handed circus pass. Since the defender is no longer there, his "non contact fall" looks awkward.

I see no "intent" for a "chop block".


but....Seeing your point, in real time, live in the gym, I would have no problem a blocking call went on the defender. I just got nuthin in 16 slow motion reviews.....

As a side note:
When my players complain on any officials call:

"Coach, I didn't ________________ (fill in the blanks)"

I 'usually' respond with, But it LOOKED like you _________________"

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Larry, it's gotta be a personal, you can't call a technical for live ball contact. If flagrant, it's a flagrant personal.
It makes a difference on who shoots the free throws and where the ball is put back into play. Although in this case, the ball would be put back in play at close to the same place.

BTW, in real time, I'm going with flagrant on this.

For this play, I agree....personal or nothing.

However, if the act being penalized is a deemed a "fight", it is a T. Fighting is always a T without regard to the status of the ball. (4-18, 10-3-9). The infraction is not for the contact itself but the attempt to contact, whether successful or not (4-18-1). Just because the infraction results in contact doesn't change it from a T to a personal, the infraction is already commited when the swing is made. The result is irrelevant.

[Lotto]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

For this play, I agree....personal or nothing.

However, if the act being penalized is a deemed a "fight", it is a T. Fighting is always a T without regard to the status of the ball. (4-18, 10-3-9). The infraction is not for the contact itself but the attempt to contact, whether successful or not (4-18-1). Just because the infraction results in contact doesn't change it from a T to a personal, the infraction is already commited when the swing is made. The result is irrelevant.

In NCAA, a fight while the ball is live is a flagrant personal foul, not a technical:

Rule 4-26.6. A combative confrontation may occur when the ball is live, in which case, it is a flagrant personal foul; or when the ball is dead, and a flagrant technical foul shall be assessed.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

For this play, I agree....personal or nothing.

And I would charge a flagrant unsporting T. I do not see any contact on the play, but it was clearly a ridiculous attempt to wipe out the opponent.
Yet we can disagree here as the decision depends upon whether or not the official deems there was physical contact.
Of course, my opinion is that it is flagrant either way (personal or technical).

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

However, if the act being penalized is a deemed a "fight", it is a T. Fighting is always a T without regard to the status of the ball. (4-18, 10-3-9). The infraction is not for the contact itself but the attempt to contact, whether successful or not (4-18-1). Just because the infraction results in contact doesn't change it from a T to a personal, the infraction is already commited when the swing is made. The result is irrelevant.

100% WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A contact foul during a live ball, including an act of fighting is a personal foul. See the following Case Book play.

8.7 SITUATION A:

A1 is attempting the second free throw of a two-shot foul. While the second free throw is in flight, A2 and B1 punch each other simultaneously. RULING: Both A2 and B1 are disqualified for fighting. Since this is a double personal foul, no free throws are awarded. The ball is put in play at the point of interruption. If A1's free throw is successful, Team B is awarded a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. If A1's free throw is unsuccessful, the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-19-8; 6-4-3g; 7-5-3b; 4-36; 10-3-8; 10 Penalty 1c, 8a(1))

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And I would charge a flagrant unsporting T. I do not see any contact on the play, but it was clearly a ridiculous attempt to wipe out the opponent.
Yet we can disagree here as the decision depends upon whether or not the official deems there was physical contact.
Of course, my opinion is that it is flagrant either way (personal or technical).




100% WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A contact foul during a live ball, including an act of fighting is a personal foul. See the following Case Book play.

8.7 SITUATION A:

A1 is attempting the second free throw of a two-shot foul. While the second free throw is in flight, A2 and B1 punch each other simultaneously. RULING: Both A2 and B1 are disqualified for fighting. Since this is a double personal foul, no free throws are awarded. The ball is put in play at the point of interruption. If A1's free throw is successful, Team B is awarded a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. If A1's free throw is unsuccessful, the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-19-8; 6-4-3g; 7-5-3b; 4-36; 10-3-8; 10 Penalty 1c, 8a(1))

Camron and NevadaRef are both correct. And my comments only refer to NFHS Rules because I do not have the time to address NCAA Rules at this moment.

NFHS R4-S18 (Fighting): Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1: An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms,
legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.
ART. 2: An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act
that causes a person to retaliate by fighting.


NFHS R4-S19 (Foul): A foul is an infraction of the rules which is charged and is penalized.
ART. 1: A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with
an opponent while the ball is live, which hinders an opponent from
performing normal defensive and offensive movements. A personal foul
also includes contact by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is
dead.
NOTE: Contact after the ball has become dead is ignored unless it is
ruled intentional or flagrant or is committed by or on an airborne
shooter.

ART. 5: A technical foul is:
a. A foul by a nonplayer.
b. A noncontact foul by a player.
c. An intentional or flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead, except
a foul by an airborne shooter.
d. A direct technical, charged to the head coach because of his/her
actions or for permitting a player to participate after having been
disqualified.
e. An indirect technical, charged to the head coach as a result of a
bench technical foul being assessed to team bench personnel, or a
technical foul being assessed to a team member for dunking or
grasping the ring during pregame warm-up or at intermission.


NFHS R10-S3 (Player Technical): A player shall not:
ART. 8: Be charged with fighting. [My comments: This is not be be
intepreted to mean that a player shall not be charged with a technical
foul for fighting, but that a player is prohibited from fighting and the
player does fight, the player is to be charged with a flagrant technical
foul. I know the wording makes no sense.] PENALTY: (Art. 8)
Flagrant foul.


The results would be the same in Casebook Play 8.7 Situation A, because in this case the fouls by A2 and B1 is a double foul. But one can see how confusing the rules are if only B1 and swung and hit A2. B1's contact is definitely flagrant in and of itsself. But one part of the rules say that a fighting foul is a technical foul while another part of the rules is silient about it. Therefore, in the scenario I just gave, whether we treat this foul as a personal foul or as a technical foul is important becasue it determines who will shoot the free throws and where Team A will get the ball for the throw-in part of the penalty.

It is my personal opinion that the NFHS should completely re-write the rules per fighting. I think that there are rules in place to handle flagrant actions by players. But that is the subject of a new thread.

MTD, Sr.

[Nevadaref]

MTD,
It seems that you make this entirely too complicated.

The executive summary is:
1. Contact during a live ball is a personal foul.
2. Contact during a dead ball is a technical foul if it is deemed intentional or flagrant and ignored if it isn't, unless the contact is by or on an airborne shooter (in which case it is a personal foul).

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by CoachP

Actually, I thought that video was up in your leagues area....all the Adam Morrison lookalikes....



Agree to disagree, I guess. I slowed it down frame by frame, (as well as youtube allows) . If anything, it looks like defender starts to take a charge, realized he wasn't going to get it, stopped and turned his back and started to duck...falling away from iminent contact. Meanwhile, dribbler, assuming there is going to be a train wreck, changes direction, then leaps to make a one handed circus pass. Since the defender is no longer there, his "non contact fall" looks awkward.

I see no "intent" for a "chop block".







but....Seeing your point, in real time, live in the gym, I would have no problem a blocking call went on the defender. I just got nuthin in 16 slow motion reviews.....

As a side note:
When my players complain on any officials call:

"Coach, I didn't ________________ (fill in the blanks)"

I 'usually' respond with, But it LOOKED like you _________________"

"If anything, it looks like defender starts to take a charge,"

Please tell me your joking, this clown has no idea what he's doing. Charge to him is something Mommy does at Nordstrom's.

[kmw]

call

a. free throw violation for leaving semi circle.

b. if I kicked the violation and then the play happened - I have a flagrant personal. If I don't call this - then I have to worry about the fight that will be happening...

And then I go home and worry about writing my report to the state because once my assignor finds out I kicked the violation and then this happened I would get a tongue lashing.

As much as we look at this situation - nothing is as it seems- we have no idea how the game ended.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

100% WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A contact foul during a live ball, including an act of fighting is a personal foul. See the following Case Book play.


8.7 SITUATION A:

A1 is attempting the second free throw of a two-shot foul. While the second free throw is in flight, A2 and B1 punch each other simultaneously. RULING: Both A2 and B1 are disqualified for fighting. Since this is a double personal foul, no free throws are awarded. The ball is put in play at the point of interruption. If A1's free throw is successful, Team B is awarded a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. If A1's free throw is unsuccessful, the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-19-8; 6-4-3g; 7-5-3b; 4-36; 10-3-8; 10 Penalty 1c, 8a(1))

100% RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have a rule that explicitly says that fighting is a technical foul whether the ball is dead or live.

The infraction is for the ATTEMPT to strike, not the subsequent contact....

4-18 (Fighting): Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1: An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms,
legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.

10-3 (Player Technical): A player shall not:
ART. 8: Be charged with fighting.

The case play you cite directly contradicts the rules (and that is not the first time that has occurred). I'm going with the rule over the case play given the propensity of the recent rules committees to write case plays without consulting the rules.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

And I would charge a flagrant unsporting T. I do not see any contact on the play, but it was clearly a ridiculous attempt to wipe out the opponent.
Yet we can disagree here as the decision depends upon whether or not the official deems there was physical contact.
Of course, my opinion is that it is flagrant either way (personal or technical).

Agreed...that part is all up to contact or not, intent or clumsiness, etc....

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

NevadaRef:

My original post was written very quickly because I had to get the concession stand opened at the football stadium for Start H.S.'s annual Powder Puff football game. I agree with Camron on this issue. When the NCAA and then the NFHS adopted this rule, the word from both rules committees was that if the conduct, in the judgemet of the official met the qualifications of the definition of fighting then it was a technical foul. That is why the intepretation in the Casebook Play you reference troubles me. But as I said before, I think that rule(s) is poorly written in both codes.

The fighting rule was first adopted by the NCAA in response the the conduct of the players of certain men's teams in the Big East back in the mid-90's (I am not going to climb up in the attic to look up the exact year the rule went into effect.). The NCAA fighting rule penalties were not just for the game but it the penalties extend beyond the game in which the player was charged with a fighting foul. The NFHS fighting rule penalties only apply to the game in which the fighting foul occurs.

It is still my personal opinion that the fighting foul rules in both codes are both poorly written and not needed. The rules are there to take care of flagrant conduct by players, substitutes, and coaches.

MTD, Sr.