What do you have?

[Nevadaref]

I disagree with both of you, and although he is no longer here, JR does too!

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Now.....what's your call as an official?

Personally, I think I'd call that a "fight" and give both players flagrant personal fouls for fighting.

NFHS rule 4-18-2 - "Fighting includes....an attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act towards an opponent that causes an opponent to retaliate". NCAA rule 4-23-3(b) basically uses the same language.

Write 'er up real good, and let whoever game management was on that game deal with the fall-out.

Jmo....

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I disagree with both of you, and although he is no longer here, JR does too!

Maybe you disagree with which one (rule vs. case) to take, but you can't disagree that the rulebook says fighting is a T.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Maybe you disagree with which one (rule vs. case) to take, but you can't disagree that the rulebook says fighting is a T.

1. This is not the first time that we have discussed this point on this forum. We've noted several times that this particular rule is lacking and therefore, unfortunately, unclear and confusing.

2. As we just discussed in another thread (The one about scoring three points or two points.) this rule must be understood in the proper context. 10-3-8 is clearly intended to pertain to players during a dead ball period. It should specify that, but it doesn't. However, we can deduce that fact because we know that there are certain principles that govern the game of basketball. One of those dictates when fouls are personal and when they are technical. Fundamental #10 provides part of that principle. It should not be set aside just because a past editor of the rules book forgot a couple of words when rewriting or amending a rule. Both the Case Book and the Simplified and Illustrated have it right -- fighting during a live ball is a flagrant personal foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. This is not the first time that we have discussed this point on this forum. We've noted several times that this particular rule is lacking and therefore, unfortunately, unclear and confusing.

Unclear? You and a few others have noted your opinion but this rule is about as plain as any rule in the book....Rule 4 says that fighting is an attempt to strike during a dead ball OR a live ball with contact or not. And rule 10 says fighting is a T. Period. That is about a simple as it can get.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2. As we just discussed in another thread (The one about scoring three points or two points.) this rule must be understood in the proper context. 10-3-8 is clearly intended to pertain to players during a dead ball period. It should specify that, but it doesn't. However, we can deduce that fact because we know that there are certain principles that govern the game of basketball. One of those dictates when fouls are personal and when they are technical. Fundamental #10 provides part of that principle.

This whole paragraph misses the entire point. It is not a contact foul at all. The T is NOT for the contact but the unsportsmanlike act...the attempt to contact. What follows the attempt (which is the T'able offense and must alway precede the contact) doesn't change what is already a T to a personal foul.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It should not be set aside just because a past editor of the rules book forgot a couple of words when rewriting or amending a rule. Both the Case Book and the Simplified and Illustrated have it right -- fighting during a live ball is a flagrant personal foul.

What we have is a recent editor who has not done a good job in writing new case plays. We have at least 3 recent case plays that either directly contradict existing and long established rules (this one and the backcourt case/situation from a couple seasons ago) or appear to contradict the rules because the explanations are incomplete (OOB and LGP/block/PC) .

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

... rule 10 says fighting is a T. Period. That is about a simple as it can get.

Sure, if you take it totally out of context and in isolation.
There are quite a few rules in the book which one could read in a similar fashion and which would also generate absurb results.
Examples: 1. Apply 7-2-2 during a throw-in to the thrower right after the official hands him the ball.
2. Apply either 9-2-1 or 9-2-2 during a throw-in following a goal or awarded goal. 9-2-3 and 9-2-9 both specify "except as in 7-5-7," but the first two do not.
3. Apply the penalty specified in 10-4-5 even when the offender participates in the fight because the leaving of the bench was first.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This whole paragraph misses the entire point. It is not a contact foul at all. The T is NOT for the contact but the unsportsmanlike act...the attempt to contact. What follows the attempt (which is the T'able offense and must alway precede the contact) doesn't change what is already a T to a personal foul.

So you are trying to claim that punching an opponent in the face qualifies as a noncontact foul! That's the only way that it could meet the definition of a technical foul provided in 4-19-5:
. . 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. (10-5)
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 player technical foul being assessed to a team member for dunking or grasping the ring during pre-game warm-up or at intermission. (10-3-4, 10-4-1 through 4, 10-5-2)

That's complete garbarge.
If what you wrote were true, you would have two fouls on any punch. One for the unsporting behavior of trying to strike the opponent (I guess for the malicious intent.) and a second one for succeeding and actually making physical contact.
Need I remind you what the NFHS has written regarding a player swinging an elbow and making contact or not?

Here's one of our previous discussions:
swinging an elbow

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

What we have is a recent editor who has not done a good job in writing new case plays. We have at least 3 recent case plays that either directly contradict existing and long established rules (this one and the backcourt case/situation from a couple seasons ago) or appear to contradict the rules because the explanations are incomplete (OOB and LGP/block/PC) .

I have to concur that the current rules editor has made some serious errors. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that one of the governing principles for fouls is that a contact foul during a live ball can never be anything other than a personal foul.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

S

So you are trying to claim that punching an opponent in the face qualifies as a noncontact foul!

I think that the point is that the contact is not the most important part of the punch. A punch that whiffs and a punch that breaks a jaw carry the same ultimate penalty. The offender is gone and somebody is gonna shoot 2. If you want to insist that the broken jawed guy's sub shoot the ft's and take the ball out at the spot rather than the division line and quote a case play to justify it, fine, but how can you possibly read 10-3-8 and say that to call the foul a technical is 100% wrong?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I disagree with both of you, and although he is no longer here, JR does too!

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Now.....what's your call as an official?

Personally, I think I'd call that a "fight" and give both players flagrant personal fouls for fighting.

NFHS rule 4-18-2 - "Fighting includes....an attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act towards an opponent that causes an opponent to retaliate".
Write 'er up real good, and let whoever game management was on that game deal with the fall-out.

Jmo....

Interesting that you and JR use this rule to make the point that your are making. 4-18-2 does not specify personal or technical, and 4.18.2 situation is one where a personal foul call is certainly not an option.

[just another ref]

Where else is fighting referred to as a personal other than 8.7? I think this is a significant question since 8-7 has nothing to do with fighting. I would consider this to be either an oversight or a typo. Also, in 8.7 the players simultaneously punch each other. How often do we see this happen in the real world? What about this? B1 is pushing A1 in the post. A1, frustrated because no foul is called, finally turns and punches B1. B1 is knocked down, but quickly jumps up and punches A1 back before the two are separated by the officials. So, if I understand correctly from above, this would be a false double foul, a personal followed by a technical. Both fouls are flagrant, so B1's substitute must shoot his free throws, then any player for A can shoot the free throws and A gets the ball at the division line.

[BillyMac]

I'm just sitting back waiting for someone (maybe the Forum member who used to date Mary Struckoff in high school and has her email address) to come up with a definitive answer on this, but I did just take a glance at the 10-6 Fouls and Penalties Contact section, specifically 10-6-8 Fighting, and the word "technical" is not used anywhere in this rule, except in regard to indirect technical fouls to coaches who have players coming off the bench.

Various technical fouls are described in sections 10-1 through 10-5. Contact fouls, including fighting, are described in Section 6 Contact. However, 10-3-8 does say that it's a player technical to, "Be charged with fighting", and 10-4-1-g does say that it's a bench personnel technical for, "Being charged with fighting".

One answer is easy. If the fight takes place during a dead ball, everything is a technical foul. If however, during a live ball, a fight takes place ??? Could 10-3-8 only refer to a player who is fighting during a dead ball ???

I've been very lucky so far in my twenty-seven year career. Just a few simple one on one punches, by players, double fouls that led to ejections, and in the heat of the moment, and the fact that these rare events happened so long ago, I don't remember whether I, or my partner, called personnel, or technical, fouls. But I sure would like to know the proper way to deal with a live ball fight.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm just sitting back waiting for someone (maybe the Forum member who used to date Mary Struckoff in high school and has her email address) to come up with a definitive answer on this, but I did just take a glance at the 10-6 Fouls and Penalties Contact section, specifically 10-6-8 Fighting, and the word "technical" is not used anywhere in this rule, except in regard to indirect technical fouls to coaches who have players coming off the bench.

Various technical fouls are described in sections 10-1 through 10-5. Contact fouls, including fighting, are described in Section 6 Contact. However, 10-3-8 does say that it's a player technical to, "Be charged with fighting", and 10-4-1-g does say that it's a bench personnel technical for, "Being charged with fighting".

One answer is easy. If the fight takes place during a dead ball, everything is a technical foul. If however, during a live ball, a fight takes place ??? Could 10-3-8 only refer to a player who is fighting during a dead ball ???

I've been very lucky so far in my twenty-seven year career. Just a few simple one on one punches, by players, double fouls that led to ejections, and in the heat of the moment, and the fact that these rare events happened so long ago, I don't remember whether I, or my partner, called personnel, or technical, fouls. But I sure would like to know the proper way to deal with a live ball fight.

Billy:

I don't if the person, , who dated Mary in H.S. will come on the forum and answer your question but the NFHS and NCAA fighting rules pre-date Mary to the time when the late Dick Schindler, Hank Nichols and Marcy Weston (I think; I know it was not Barb Jacobs) were the rules editors of the NFHS, NCAA Men's, and NCAA Women's Rules committees respectively and I heard Dick and Hank speak in their capacity as rules editors for the NFHS and NCAA on this matter. AND: If, the official deems that the conduct of the player or players is a fight, the foul or fouls are technical fouls.

As we know, this is not the first time in the last five or six years that that NFHS and issued a Rules Intepretation or Casebook Ruling the was incorrect. People can search this forum for incorrect intepretation that appeared in the NFHS Rules Interpretations. The ironic thing about this Rules Intepretation Play was that there was an existing Casebook Play (that was identical to the Rules Interpration Play even thought it was not in the current Casebook) that gave an Ruling that was completely opposite of the Casebook Ruling and even quoted the same Casebook Play rules to justify the NFHS's ruling in the Rules Interpretation. Of course the Casebook Play Ruling was the correct ruling and it took multiple emails to Mary Struckhoff and Dick Knox of the the North Carolina HSAA (and the Rules Committee Chairman at the time) to convince the NFHS that the Rules Interpretation Ruling needed to be corrected to reflect the existion Casebook Ruling.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. If I dated Mary when she was H.S. I would still be in prison, .

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

If, the official deems that the conduct of the player or players is a fight, the foul or fouls are technical fouls.

Sounds good to me. How many trips up to the attic did it take you to find this answer for us? Thanks.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

If I dated Mary when she was H.S. I would still be in prison.

No. You would be out by now.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Interesting that you and JR use this rule to make the point that your are making. 4-18-2 does not specify personal or technical, and 4.18.2 situation is one where a personal foul call is certainly not an option.

The taunting by A1 is an unsporting technical foul. That makes the ball dead right then per rule 6-7-7. When B1 retaliates by fighting DURING THIS DEAD BALL PERIOD, that's a technical foul for fighting and A1's technical foul becomes fighting under 4-18-2.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...the NFHS and NCAA fighting rules pre-date Mary to the time when the late Dick Schindler, Hank Nichols and Marcy Weston (I think; I know it was not Barb Jacobs) were the rules editors of the NFHS, NCAA Men's, and NCAA Women's Rules committees respectively and I heard Dick and Hank speak in their capacity as rules editors for the NFHS and NCAA on this matter. AND: If, the official deems that the conduct of the player or players is a fight, the foul or fouls are technical fouls.

That may be the way that it was way back when, but it is not the way that the NCAA book reads now.

RULE 10
Fouls and Penalties

Section 1. Personal Fouls

...

Art. 13.

A player shall not flagrantly or excessively contact an opponent while the ball is live (includes fighting).

However, even the NCAA book has some conflicting and therefore confusing language in Appendix 1:

Suspensions

1. Any member or team personnel who participates in a fight (regardless
of whether he or she is a player at the time) shall be assessed a flagrant
technical foul. No free throws shall be attempted by either team when
there are double flagrant fouls that are offsetting.

I'm still convinced that this is just more sloppy rules writing and that fighting by a player during a live ball is a personal foul and during a dead ball is a technical foul.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The taunting by A1 is an unsporting technical foul. That makes the ball dead right then per rule 6-7-7. When B1 retaliates by fighting DURING THIS DEAD BALL PERIOD, that's a technical foul for fighting and A1's technical foul becomes fighting under 4-18-2.

We knew all that. So why cite this rule when saying fighting during a live ball can be a personal?