What do you have?
 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FOZmpixWxiE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FOZmpixWxiE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Lane violation on the second free throw and then a flagrant personal on the same kid for me.

Free-throw violation on the shooter.

Then, I've got a flagrant on the same player.

Free-throw violation on the shooter.

But I only have a common foul on the same player, because without knowledge of a previously demonstrated pattern of play, the foul looks more like a mis-judgement/lack of coordination foul than a take-down IMHO

If the trail had killed the play on the offensive violation, the whole senerio could have been avoided.

I would agree with you if we hadn’t seen the young mans free throw attempts. He clearly seemed to be making a mockery of the game with his turn around fade away and one handed free throws. Didn’t look like he wanting to play the game the right way. Time to hit the showers kid.

I have four things.

1) valid free throw
2) free throw violation
3) trail official to be smacked upside the head for missing the violation
4) illegal chop block, 15 yard penalty

I have a kid that wouldn't have shot the second free throw if I was coaching. But I'm not a coach so I agree with the above posts, less the 15 yard penalty.

-Josh

I have a violation on the defense for the first free throw. Top lane occupied??? That should be an officials mistake. I agree with everyone else's evaluation, after the first free-throw.

Okay. I am going to take a different position on this play.

Yes, smack the T for not having a free throw violation by the FT shooter, A1, on the second FT.

Now, for the play near the division line. First, this looked like an intramural game at the 8th or 9th grade level, meaning that the skill level is not that great. Second, I agree that A1's attitude about the second FT did not look good. BUT, I watched the play five times in real time and another five times in slow motion. AND here is what I saw: A1 started to move to get in front of the dribbler B1; he did not obtain a legal guarding position with respect to B1. A1 did not turn and duck until B1 went airborne. Furthermore, I did not see any contact between A1 and B1. MEANING, I have nothing on this play. If there was contact it is a common foul for blocking foul by A1 on B1.

MTD, Sr.

Interesting. Isn't it nice to have the luxury of the video and to watch it over and over in our homes? Of course, when it happens live I wonder if anyone else notices the "little to no contact" that actually occurred. Regardless, it's gonna get a whistle! Wonder what the call actually was?

:confused:

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. :o

I agree with Mark.

Dribbler/passer was airborne before defender "went low"
Defender knew he couldn't get LGP, so it looks like he tried to avoid contact by awkwardly falling.
There was no contact.

Nothing.

He left the half circle. 9-1

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.

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.

Thanks for the clarification Snags :)

I'd look at that again. Why would A1 go airborne to begin with? This is no awkward attempt of avoidance. Notice the concern for player he undercut, and I detect a slight smirk on his face. If I 'have nothing' on that play in a Varsity game in my state, they'd revoke my license.

If you didn't think he touched him, I'd use 4-19-14 an unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical, dishonorable, conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play

So, did you talk to your son after the game about goofing around during his free throws? ;)

Nice!!!!!!!!!

Actually, I thought that video was up in your leagues area....all the Adam Morrison lookalikes....

Agree to disagree, I guess. I slowed it down frame by frame, (as well as youtube allows) . If anything, it looks like defender starts to take a charge, realized he wasn't going to get it, stopped and turned his back and started to duck...falling away from iminent contact. Meanwhile, dribbler, assuming there is going to be a train wreck, changes direction, then leaps to make a one handed circus pass. Since the defender is no longer there, his "non contact fall" looks awkward.

I see no "intent" for a "chop block".


but....Seeing your point, in real time, live in the gym, I would have no problem a blocking call went on the defender. I just got nuthin in 16 slow motion reviews.....:cool:

As a side note:
When my players complain on any officials call:

"Coach, I didn't ________________ (fill in the blanks)"

I 'usually' respond with, But it LOOKED like you _________________"

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.

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:

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.

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).

"If anything, it looks like defender starts to take a charge,"

Please tell me your joking, this clown has no idea what he's doing. Charge to him is something Mommy does at Nordstrom's.

my call
 

call

a. free throw violation for leaving semi circle.

b. if I kicked the violation and then the play happened - I have a flagrant personal. If I don't call this - then I have to worry about the fight that will be happening...

And then I go home and worry about writing my report to the state because once my assignor finds out I kicked the violation and then this happened I would get a tongue lashing.

As much as we look at this situation - nothing is as it seems- we have no idea how the game ended.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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) .

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.

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:
http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...ing-elbow.html

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.

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?

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.

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.

Inquiring Minds Want to Know ???
 

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, :D, 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, :D.

The Great Oz Has Spoken ...
 

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

Didn't I See Your Name On Some Kind Of List ???
 

No. You would be out by now.

The taunting by A1 is an unsporting technical foul. That makes the ball dead right then per rule 6-7-7. When B1 retaliates by fighting DURING THIS DEAD BALL PERIOD, that's a technical foul for fighting and A1's technical foul becomes fighting under 4-18-2.

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.

We knew all that. So why cite this rule when saying fighting during a live ball can be a personal?

As far as I know I didn't, but for some reason you claim that I did. I actually cited 8.7 Situation A.

I merely quoted a post by JR from another thread in which there was a discussion about whether or not certain action qualified as fighting. That is why he quoted the definition of fighting within his post. I quoted his post because he also stated therein his belief of the proper penalty for fighting during a live ball--flagrant personal foul. That is the line that I really cared about.

<font size = +5><b>CASE BOOK PLAY 10.4.5 SITUATION A!!!</b></font>

<b><u>10.4.5 SITUATION A:</u></b> Post players A1 and B1 begin punching each other and <b>play is stopped</b>.....
<u><b>RULING:</b></u> A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws result from the double <b>PERSONAL</b> flagrant fouls.

NFHS rule 4-19-4 says <i>"A flagrant foul may be a <b>personal</b> or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical non-contact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. If <b>personal</b>, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: <b>striking</b>, kicking and kneeing."</i>

NFHS rule 4-18-1 FIGHTING says <i>"Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur while the ball is dead or <b>LIVE</b>. Fighting includes but is not limited to combative acts such as an attempt to <b>STRIKE</b>, punch or kick an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether <b>contact</b> is made."</i>

Flagrant contact while the ball is live = a flagrant personal foul. That includes <b>striking</b> an opponent, which by definition is <b>fighting</b>.

How much more definitive do you want the FED to be? And how much more ridiculous can it be for people to claim that <b>TWO</b> case plays are wrong and their own personal vision of the way things ought to be is correct?

Silly monkies!

Lah me.....:rolleyes:

You don't understand correctly. That's completely wrong by rule. Specifically rule 4-19-8 which says <i>"A double <b>personal</b> foul is a situation in which two opponents commit personal fouls against each other at <b>APPROXIMATELY</b> the same time."</i> That includes immediate retaliation.

Fight Starts During A Live Ball, Which Becomes A Dead Ball ???
 

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?

Are You Sure That You're A Newbie ???
 

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.

Could We All Chip In To Add A First Floor Library To Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.'s House ???
 

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.

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 <b>always</b>.
Contact fouls while the ball is dead are a technical foul of some kind <b>always</b> (except for one exception...contact by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is dead).
Non-contact fouls while the ball is live <b>or</b> dead are technical fouls of some kind <b>always</b>.

Apply "fighting" to those definitions and you'll make the correct call. And remember that immediate retaliation is <b>always</b> 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.....

"And don't call me Shirley."
 

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".

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.

A dead giveaway? :eek:

Common Sense Agrees With Citation, What A Novel Concept ...
 

You're right, it's common sense, and, it can also be cited:

NFHS 4-19-8: Double fouls:
a. A double personal foul is a situation in which two opponents commit personal fouls against each other at approximately the same time.
b. A double technical foul is a situation in which two opponents commit technical fouls against each other at approximately the same time.

Pretty good for a newbie. Keep up the good work.

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?

So according to this logic, B1 tries to steal the ball from A1 and inadvertently slaps him across the arm. A1 is upset by the slap and immediately retaliates by punching B1. This would be a double personal foul?

This one, as far as I'm concerned is waaaaay out there. There's all kinds of ways to immediately retaliate for something. B1 fouls A1. The ball is now dead.
For whatever reason, A1 is upset and immediately retaliates. This retaliation could be anything. A1 might push him, punch him, curse him or spit on him. But none of these would be a double foul.

2008-09 NFHS Casebook Play 2.10.1 Situation A
 

It has appeared that we, myself included, has hijacked this thread for a Casebook Play that is not really germain to the original post. And I don't Bob Jenkins, our moderater, would mind if I suggest that we move this discussion to a thread that was started by Nevada on Sep. 27/Sat.(07:22amGMT), 2008: http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...situation.html.

I intend to make all further posts regarding this Casebook Play in the above mentioned thread. So that we can get back to posting, if anybody so desires, about the original post in THIS thread.

I apologize to mu4scott for being a major player if not "the" major player in hijacking this thread.

Having said that I want everybody to have a great Sunday. Go Steelers!

And yesterday wasn't to bad either: the Youngstown State Penguins and The Ohio State Buckeyes won, the Western Illionois Leathernecks lost, but the Michigan Wolverines won. Three out of four isn't bad. Ready for the big games in two weeks Rut, :D?

MTD, Sr.

I finally got a look at this
 

Well first if the Ref gets the violation on the shooter we probably do not see this play evolve the way it does on film.

I do not see that you can get a fight out of this, since there is no retaliation and while it is a train wreck the contact is not that severe - however I think you could get an intentional out of it, it is a non basketball play that results in a dangerous situation. and as soon as that kid stood up and smirked you could whack him if you chose and eject him.
At the least at the end of this sequence I'm talking to his coach to get him out of the game for his own good.

This is one of those situations where if you deal with the initial issue you do not most likely have the second issue.

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.

Unsporting Technical/Ejection for the thug!

I like this guy's style! ;)

I have no problem with his style, but his interpretation is severely flawed. For some reason I have a feeling he won't be changing his mind.