What do you have?

[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) .

[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

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, .

[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.....

[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?

[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?

[Nevadaref]

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.....

I like this guy's style!