Why?

If the first smack is considered the start of a fight.....

and that matters because...???

I'll play along.

10-3-8: A player shall not be charged with fighting.

I can play this game too. ;)

8.7 SITUATION A:

RULING:

*10.4.5 SITUATION A:

Double, Personal, Technical ??? Help ...
 

These are good citations, however, they both seem to describe simultaneous acts, or, a situation where one act is clearly not stated as happening before/or after the other one.

Let me keep it simple. For me. Not for you. Live Ball. Clock running. A1 and B1 down in the post. The official sees A1 land a punch on B1. Whistle is blown. Official sees B1 retaliate by landing a punch on A1.

My opinion, but I can be persuaded otherwise: A1 charged with flagrant personal foul (live ball contact). That foul, not the whistle, makes the ball dead. B1 is charged with a flagrant technical foul (dead ball contact).

Yet 10-3-8 (A player shall not be charged with fighting) makes we wonder if both of these are technical fouls? I believe that you can't have a double foul that includes one personal, and one technical? Inquiring minds, and confused minds, want to know. Help.

1. The citations are intended to show that the FIRST foul, which is a contact foul during a live ball, is a personal foul. That was the only point that I was making with these references. I didn't really care about the second foul. Perhaps I should simply find a play ruling in which there is only one punch and no response during a live ball. That would be clearer. I'll look for it.

2. You are correct that both fouls of a double foul must be either both personal or both technical.

3. Assuming no try for goal is involved, the foul does make the ball dead, not the whistle. You are correct about that. However, when the response by the opponent occurs almost immediately, the best ruling is to treat the fouls as happening at "approximately the same time." That makes them constitute a double foul.

4. If you have a serious time lag between the two offences, I would say more than a couple of seconds, then you have to go with a false double foul and penalize each one separately and in the order in which they occurred.

5. 10-3-8 must be taken in context. It means fighting during a dead ball.

Either somebody here described it this way or I dreamed this, but I like this explanation. One punch does not a fight make. If A1 punches B1 during a live ball and that is the end of it, I have no problem with a flagrant personal. But if this punch leads to further activity, the whole thing is a fight, which started with the start of the first swing, or perhaps even with the contemplation of that first swing, not with the actual contact. This, I think, is when 10-3-8 comes into play.

Interesting take. I don't agree with it, but it is an arguable theory.

I don't believe that it is correct because of how the definition of fighting in 4-18-1 is written.

Without a doubt, these 2 plays give some significance to your argument. But I think this is greatly minimized by the fact that in both these plays there is only a passing reference to the fouls in question. Rule 8-7 deals with the administration sequence for free throws. Rule 10-4 deals with bench technicals. 10-3 deals with player technicals and states directly that no player shall be charged with fighting. There is no case play for 10-3-8. I'm guessing that this is because most people would consider this statement to be extremely self explanatory.

Your turn :)

If fighting were always a technical foul no matter what, without exception, then those case plays wouldn't need to exist. Their very existence demonstrates otherwise and proves that 10-3-5 must be taken in the context of a dead ball.

If the fights in both these plays had taken place while the ball was dead,
(8.7 after the ball goes through the basket, 10.4.5 during any dead ball) how would that have changed the play?