What do you have?

[cdoug]

Okay, maybe it's because I'm still learning the rules and haven't officiated a basketball game yet but I need help "seeing" what you all were talking about when you said a violation on the shooter for the 2nd FT attempt. I read 9-1 multiple times as well as rule 8. I'm quite sure I'm just missing it but would like to know what "it" is so I can learn and improve quicker.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by cdoug

Okay, maybe it's because I'm still learning the rules and haven't officiated a basketball game yet but I need help "seeing" what you all were talking about when you said a violation on the shooter for the 2nd FT attempt. I read 9-1 multiple times as well as rule 8. I'm quite sure I'm just missing it but would like to know what "it" is so I can learn and improve quicker.

He left the half circle. 9-1

[rlarry]

Free throw Violation
Flagrant Technical. Mommy's little angel dove under the player for no apparent reason. He needs to learn how to act or sit his fat arse down

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rlarry

Free throw Violation
Flagrant Technical. Mommy's little angel dove under the player for no apparent reason. He needs to learn how to act or sit his fat arse down

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.

[Adam]

I disagree with the thought there was no contact. I see dribbler's knee, at least, contacting the turd's head. On this play, it doesn't take much contact for the flagrant.

[rlarry]

Thanks for the clarification Snags

[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.

[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....