What do you have?

[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, .

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

If, the official deems that the conduct of the player or players is a fight, the foul or fouls are technical fouls.

Sounds good to me. How many trips up to the attic did it take you to find this answer for us? Thanks.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

If I dated Mary when she was H.S. I would still be in prison.

No. You would be out by now.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

...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.

That may be the way that it was way back when, but it is not the way that the NCAA book reads now.

RULE 10
Fouls and Penalties

Section 1. Personal Fouls

...

Art. 13.

A player shall not flagrantly or excessively contact an opponent while the ball is live (includes fighting).

However, even the NCAA book has some conflicting and therefore confusing language in Appendix 1:

Suspensions

1. Any member or team personnel who participates in a fight (regardless
of whether he or she is a player at the time) shall be assessed a flagrant
technical foul. No free throws shall be attempted by either team when
there are double flagrant fouls that are offsetting.

I'm still convinced that this is just more sloppy rules writing and that fighting by a player during a live ball is a personal foul and during a dead ball is a technical foul.

[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 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?

[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.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Lah Me: I just realized that your a newbie.

You didn't really believe what you just typed there did you?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by eyezen

You didn't really believe what you just typed there did you?

On the right hand side, it says that he joined Nov 2008. Newbie could mean that his registration date is very recent.

Most newbies ask for the Fed test. I wonder if this guy will ask.

[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.