Two for one?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Unless the thrower punches him back. Then it's a fight, and a double technical foul.


(insert rebuttal here)_Casebook play 10.4.5SitA___Rule 4-19-1___Rule 4-19-4___Rule 4-19-5(c)__

Rebuttal inserted as requested.

Fighting is a double flagrant personal foul if the fight occurs when the ball is live. If the ball is dead, a fight occurring at that time is a double flagrant technical foul.

When in doubt, follow the rules.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

When in doubt, follow the rules.

I agree.

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

4-18: Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live.

A single punch during a live ball can be called a flagrant personal. When the punch results in further action, it is now part of a fight. See above.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Fighting is a double flagrant personal foul if the fight occurs when the ball is live.

In the first place, how would this be possible? At most, it could be a false double. The first punch, makes the ball dead. Personal followed by a technical.

Secondly 10-3-8 does not mention live or dead ball. Fighting is a technical foul.
Period. If you're hung up on the concept that live ball contact is a personal foul, consider that there is more to a fight than contact. The fight started with the start of the swing, or the contemplation of making that swing, or possibly words which were exchanged before any of this. Is any and all of this not the ultimate example of unsporting behavior?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

When in doubt, follow the rules.

And, oh, yeah, I forgot about this one.

4.18.2: A1 dunks over B1 and then taunts B1. B1 retaliates and punches A1.
Both A1 and B1 are charged with a flagrant technical foul for fighting and are disqualified.

[Jurassic Referee]

Follow the rules means that you need to read and know the rules first. Did you even bother to read the case book play that I cited, JAR?

1)Casebook play 10.4.5SitA: Post players 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.

2)Casebook play 10.4.5SitB: A fight breaks out between A1 and B1 during a DEAD ball and clock-stopped situation.
RULING: A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant TECHNICAL fouls and are disqualified.


The FED drew you a roadmap to follow with these 2 case plays. Note that both are under a section titled "ENTERING COURT DURING FIGHT". In #1 above, the fight occurred during a live ball. The result is a double flagrant PERSONAL foul. In #2 above, the fight occurred during a dead ball. The result is a double flagrant TECHNICAL foul.

Whatinthehell more do you want?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Follow the rules means that you need to read and know the rules first. Did you even bother to read the case book play that I cited, JAR?

1)Casebook play 10.4.5SitA: Post players 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.

2)Casebook play 10.4.5SitB: A fight breaks out between A1 and B1 during a DEAD ball and clock-stopped situation.
RULING: A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant TECHNICAL fouls and are disqualified.


The FED drew you a roadmap to follow with these 2 case plays. Note that both are under a section titled "ENTERING COURT DURING FIGHT". In #1 above, the fight occurred during a live ball. The result is a double flagrant PERSONAL foul. In #2 above, the fight occurred during a dead ball. The result is a double flagrant TECHNICAL foul.

Whatinthehell more do you want?

I read it. Same as I read it every time this comes up. You consider this to be a road map on how to call this play. The information you cite is all under 10-4, which deals with bench technicals. The mention of the fight itself is merely a side note, and has nothing to do with this rule.

10-3, on the other hand, deals with player technicals. It says that a player shall not be charged with fighting. How much clearer can that be?

Also: Penalties: Rule 10 summary 8. Fighting: a. Players on the court: (2) Number of participant are not corresponding............. Offended team awarded a division line throw in.

This summary does not go into technical vs. personal or live vs. dead ball, but if there was any chance of this being called a personal, why wouldn't it mention the possibility of a throw-in at the spot of the foul?

[bob jenkins]

The one thing we can all agree on is that nothing has changed since "yesterday" when we had this exact same discussion. Please, give it a rest.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The one thing we can all agree on is that nothing has changed since "yesterday" when we had this exact same discussion. Please, give it a rest.

Don't you think that maybe...just maybe...you're starting to really overstep your bounds as a moderator?

Maybe I'm wrong but I really don't think that moderator duties include telling posters what rules/situations they can or can't discuss.

You've succeeded admirably in getting rid of the fun'n'games that used to be part of this forum; now you want to get rid of legitimate rules discussions also..simply because you personally are tired of some of them.

You win. I will give "it" and YOUR forum a rest.