What do you have?

[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?