What do you have?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

As far as I know I didn't, but for some reason you claim that I did. I actually cited 8.7 Situation A.

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.

I merely quoted a post by JR from another thread in which there was a discussion about whether or not certain action qualified as fighting. That is why he quoted the definition of fighting within his post. I quoted his post because he also stated therein his belief of the proper penalty for fighting during a live ball--flagrant personal foul. That is the line that I really cared about.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

[Lah Me]

Originally Posted by 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.

CASE BOOK PLAY 10.4.5 SITUATION A!!!

10.4.5 SITUATION A: Post players A1 and B1 begin punching each other and play is stopped.....
RULING: A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws result from the double PERSONAL flagrant fouls.

NFHS rule 4-19-4 says "A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical non-contact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing."

NFHS rule 4-18-1 FIGHTING says "Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur while the ball is dead or LIVE. Fighting includes but is not limited to combative acts such as an attempt to STRIKE, punch or kick an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made."

Flagrant contact while the ball is live = a flagrant personal foul. That includes striking an opponent, which by definition is fighting.

How much more definitive do you want the FED to be? And how much more ridiculous can it be for people to claim that TWO case plays are wrong and their own personal vision of the way things ought to be is correct?

Silly monkies!

Lah me.....

[Lah Me]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

You don't understand correctly. That's completely wrong by rule. Specifically rule 4-19-8 which says "A double personal foul is a situation in which two opponents commit personal fouls against each other at APPROXIMATELY the same time." That includes immediate retaliation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Lah Me

10.4.5 SITUATION A: Post players A1 and B1 begin punching each other and play is stopped. RULING: A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws result from the double PERSONAL flagrant fouls. NFHS rule 4-19-4 says "A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical non-contact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. If personal it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing." NFHS rule 4-18-1 FIGHTING says "Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur while the ball is dead or LIVE. Fighting includes but is not limited to combative acts such as an attempt to STRIKE, punch or kick an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made." Flagrant contact while the ball is live = a flagrant personal foul. That includes striking an opponent, which by definition is fighting. How much more definitive do you want the FED to be? And how much more ridiculous can it be for people to claim that TWO case plays are wrong and their own personal vision of the way things ought to be is correct?

Lah Me: You make some great points, and citations here. Thanks for the research, but please don't shout, it's early Sunday morning here on the East coast.

10-3-8 states that it's a player technical to, "Be charged with fighting". Could 10-3-8 only refer to a player who is fighting during a dead ball? If the fight takes place during a dead ball, everything is a technical foul. If, however, a fight takes place during a live ball, then maybe every foul before the official blows the play dead is a personal foul, and every foul that takes place after the official blows the play dead is a technical foul? Am I making this too simplified, or am I missing some major point here?

[BillyMac]

Lah Me: I just realized that your a newbie. Welcome to the Forum. Your first two posts were great: rational, good citations, well thought out, and confident. We're used to newbies making initial posts like, "Is a basketball stuffed, or does it have air in it?". Keep up the good work.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That may be the way that it was way back when...

Hey. Give Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. a break. He was really tired, and still catching his breath, after making several trips up, and down, from his attic, when he wrote his post, trying to help us out with this problem. He's not as young as he used to be.

[Lah Me]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

10-3-8 states that it's a player technical to, "Be charged with fighting". Could 10-3-8 only refer to a player who is fighting during a dead ball? If the fight takes place during a dead ball, everything is a technical foul. If, however, a fight takes place during a live ball, then maybe every foul before the official blows the play dead is a personal foul, and every foul that takes place after the official blows the play dead is a technical foul? Am I making this too simplified, or am I missing some major point here?

Billy, to make the correct call, all you have to do is understand and follow the foul definitions as outlined in rule 4-19.

Contact fouls while the ball is live are a personal foul of some kind always.
Contact fouls while the ball is dead are a technical foul of some kind always (except for one exception...contact by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is dead).
Non-contact fouls while the ball is live or dead are technical fouls of some kind always.

Apply "fighting" to those definitions and you'll make the correct call. And remember that immediate retaliation is always part of a double foul no matter when you blow your whistle. The first foul called during a live ball (personal for contact...technical for non-contact) determines the type of double foul to be called.

Follow that and you won't have any problems getting the final call right. And don't let the silly monkies tell you any differently.

The last coupla pages of this thread are a result of massive over-thinking of those basic principles imo.

It's true, it's true.....

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Lah Me

Billy, remember that immediate retaliation is always part of a double foul no matter when you blow your whistle. The first foul called during a live ball (personal for contact, technical for non-contact) determines the type of double foul to be called.

Great citations on your most recent post, but how about a citation for the quote above? I'm not fully convinced that this is true.

Boy, you sure are a cocky newbie, calling me Billy, after only three posts. I expect newbies to show me some respect and call me, "BillyMac", or "Mr./Mrs./Miss/Ms./or Dr. BillyMac".

[Lah Me]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Great citations on your most recent post, but how about a citation for the quote above? I'm not fully convinced that this is true.

It's common sense. How else could you possibly designate the kind of double foul you just called other than going with the the kind of foul that you called first? The only choices you have are (1) a double personal foul, or (2) a double technical foul. If the first foul is a personal foul, then howinthehell could you ever end up calling it a double technical foul? And versa--visa.

And I ain't trying to convince you or anyone else of anything. I'm simply stating my understanding of the rules and my reasons for believing that understanding by citing appropriate and relevant rules and case plays.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Lah Me

If the first foul is a personal foul, then howinthehell could you ever end up calling it a double technical foul? And versa--visa.

A dead giveaway?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Lah Me

It's common sense. How else could you possibly designate the kind of double foul you just called other than going with the the kind of foul that you called first? The only choices you have are (1) a double personal foul, or (2) a double technical foul. If the first foul is a personal foul, then how could you ever end up calling it a double technical foul?

You're right, it's common sense, and, it can also be cited:

NFHS 4-19-8: Double fouls:
a. A double personal foul is a situation in which two opponents commit personal fouls against each other at approximately the same time.
b. A double technical foul is a situation in which two opponents commit technical fouls against each other at approximately the same time.

Pretty good for a newbie. Keep up the good work.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Lah Me

CASE BOOK PLAY 10.4.5 SITUATION A!!!

10.4.5 SITUATION A: Post players A1 and B1 begin punching each other and play is stopped.....
RULING: A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws result from the double PERSONAL flagrant fouls.

NFHS rule 4-19-4 says "A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical non-contact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing."

NFHS rule 4-18-1 FIGHTING says "Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur while the ball is dead or LIVE. Fighting includes but is not limited to combative acts such as an attempt to STRIKE, punch or kick an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made."

Flagrant contact while the ball is live = a flagrant personal foul. That includes striking an opponent, which by definition is fighting.

How much more definitive do you want the FED to be? And how much more ridiculous can it be for people to claim that TWO case plays are wrong and their own personal vision of the way things ought to be is correct?

Silly monkies!

Lah me.....

Either JR is alive or Hell has another resident here, I think. Again we have a case play which mentions fighting as a double personal foul in passing. 10-4-5 actually deals with leaving the bench during a fight, not with the fight itself.

10-3....Player Technical 10-3-8:A player shall not be charged with fighting.

This rule directly states that fighting is a technical foul, does it not?
Is there a rule which directly states that fighting is a personal foul?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Lah Me

You don't understand correctly. That's completely wrong by rule. Specifically rule 4-19-8 which says "A double personal foul is a situation in which two opponents commit personal fouls against each other at APPROXIMATELY the same time." That includes immediate retaliation.

So according to this logic, B1 tries to steal the ball from A1 and inadvertently slaps him across the arm. A1 is upset by the slap and immediately retaliates by punching B1. This would be a double personal foul?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Lah Me

And remember that immediate retaliation is always part of a double foul no matter when you blow your whistle. The first foul called during a live ball (personal for contact...technical for non-contact) determines the type of double foul to be called.

This one, as far as I'm concerned is waaaaay out there. There's all kinds of ways to immediately retaliate for something. B1 fouls A1. The ball is now dead.
For whatever reason, A1 is upset and immediately retaliates. This retaliation could be anything. A1 might push him, punch him, curse him or spit on him. But none of these would be a double foul.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

It has appeared that we, myself included, has hijacked this thread for a Casebook Play that is not really germain to the original post. And I don't Bob Jenkins, our moderater, would mind if I suggest that we move this discussion to a thread that was started by Nevada on Sep. 27/Sat.(07:22amGMT), 2008: NEW Case Book play 2.10.1 Situation A.

I intend to make all further posts regarding this Casebook Play in the above mentioned thread. So that we can get back to posting, if anybody so desires, about the original post in THIS thread.

I apologize to mu4scott for being a major player if not "the" major player in hijacking this thread.

Having said that I want everybody to have a great Sunday. Go Steelers!

And yesterday wasn't to bad either: the Youngstown State Penguins and The Ohio State Buckeyes won, the Western Illionois Leathernecks lost, but the Michigan Wolverines won. Three out of four isn't bad. Ready for the big games in two weeks Rut, ?

MTD, Sr.