Is leaving the bench a T?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by deecee

The coach would get tossed if he accumulates enough indirect T's AKOFL, not because its a direct flagrant on him.

Assuming coach is "beckoned" then he is only accumulating multiple indirect T's if bench personnel participated in the fight

[Nevadaref]

I don't know why people are talking about suspending play or forfeiting the game. There is no NFHS rule that would require such, even if all of the coaches were disqualified.

If your state has a such a provision that is different, so please note it when making that kind of comment.

[deecee]

California requires a coach to be present and if all coaches are ejected the team forfeits (at least it was the case 3 years ago).

This sounds like a forfeit because the whole bench was on the court -- so therefore all of them are done, and depending on how many of the players on teh court were involved, and I am assuming AT LEAST 1, you could potentially have a forfeit if the team is down to lets say 1 legal player, and they do not have a chance to win the game.

[AKOFL]

If the whole team is involved in the fight, who is left to play? Game over. Can you tell I'm bored?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't know why people are talking about suspending play or forfeiting the game. There is no NFHS rule that would require such, even if all of the coaches were disqualified.

If your state has a such a provision that is different, so please note it when making that kind of comment.

How about 3-1-1?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

How about 3-1-1?

I fail to see your point.

Are you misreading my post? Are you substituting "players" where I wrote "coaches"?

[Adam]

Nevada is right. The NFHS rules do not require a forfeit when all the coaches get DQd. I'm willing to bet most states do, however, have that provision in their rules.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I fail to see your point.

Are you misreading my post? Are you substituting "players" where I wrote "coaches"?

I'm not misreading anything. The OP reported that everyone left the bench, and seemed to suggest that the entire team participated in the fight. I believe that my post was the first to suggest a forfeit or suspension.

You began with: "I don't know why people are talking about suspending play or forfeiting the game." My answer: 3-1-1. If there are no players left, that rule applies.

Your posts have focused on coach ejections, but as I read the case there were more ejections than that.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm not misreading anything. The OP reported that everyone left the bench, and seemed to suggest that the entire team participated in the fight. I believe that my post was the first to suggest a forfeit or suspension.

You began with: "I don't know why people are talking about suspending play or forfeiting the game." My answer: 3-1-1. If there are no players left, that rule applies.

Your posts have focused on coach ejections, but as I read the case there were more ejections than that.

Since he said four players were left for each team, I assume at least 4 did not participate.

[bigda65]

Snaq,

You are correct. The two players involved in the fight were ej'd, and all bench personel (both teams)(except coaches) were ej'd.

I dont think any other players were actually fighting, just trying to break up the original fisticuff.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm not misreading anything. The OP reported that everyone left the bench, and seemed to suggest that the entire team participated in the fight. I believe that my post was the first to suggest a forfeit or suspension.

You began with: "I don't know why people are talking about suspending play or forfeiting the game." My answer: 3-1-1. If there are no players left, that rule applies.

Your posts have focused on coach ejections, but as I read the case there were more ejections than that.

I focused on the coaches because the OP clearly stated that each team had four players remaining following the altercation. Therefore, I knew that 3-1-1 was not an issue and that the only reason UNDER NFHS RULES that someone could suggest a forfeit was the coach situation. Perhaps it is different in your state, but the NFHS rules do NOT require that a team have an adult coach on the bench to play.

Originally Posted by bigda65

When the smoke cleared, it was a four on four contest with no subs for either team, and one brutal fan arrest.

BTW under the state regulations in NV a team forfeits if three or more individuals come off the bench during an altercation and it doesn't matter what role those people have with the team. If both teams have three or more leave the bench, then the game is a double-forfeit.

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I focused on the coaches because the OP clearly stated that each team had four players remaining following the altercation. Therefore, I knew that 3-1-1 was not an issue and that the only reason UNDER NFHS RULES that someone could suggest a forfeit was the coach situation. Perhaps it is different in your state, but the NFHS rules do NOT require that a team have an adult coach on the bench to play.



BTW under the state regulations in NV a team forfeits if three or more individuals come off the bench during an altercation and it doesn't matter what role those people have with the team. If both teams have three or more leave the bench, then the game is a double-forfeit.

I like that. A rule with some teeth.