What do you have?

[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).

[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.

[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) .

[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.

[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.