I already concurred once if you read my previous post
 

I realized I was reading to much into the wording if you look at my previous post. Thanks anyway for your explanation.

Re: I concur that I misread
 

I know this is a matter of semantics and personal preference, but I tend to see any fighting as a (flagrant) technical foul. Per rule, fighting is not just contact with an opponent, but everything that "makes" a fight, including throwing a punch. (Yes, I know, going by this interpretation leaves me open to being blasted when I argue against the contention that you can't have a T/intentional on the inbounds because a plane violation must have occured first.)

Quote:

Technicals are only given during dead ball when it invloves contact.

Yes, I'm going to be the nitpicker of the month again - technicals are given for all dead ball fouls, with one exception (10 points to the first person to answer correctly!).

Should probably read: "When there is contact, a personal foul is assessed except during a dead ball." (With exception for the previous exception.)

Still looking on your question, BUT
 

You being a rules person how can you give a live ball technical for contact. That goes directly against the rules for a technical.

As far as your reverbage of my sentence, I was merely stressing the point you CANNOT have a live ball technical that invloves contact.

[Edited by Self on Jul 26th, 2002 at 06:54 PM]

Re: Re: I concur that I misread
 

A foul on or by an airborne shooter after the ball has become dead.

(Is that one exception or two?)

Re: Re: Re: I concur that I misread
 

I counted it as one.

Congrats to Bob Jenkins - Bob, you've won ten points, what are you going to do now!????!?!!???

Re: Still looking on your question, BUT
 

The case book and the rule book seem to have a bit of a contradiction. There's a case play that calls live ball fighting a flagrant personal foul. But the rule book says that fighting is a T, and it doesn't differentiate between live ball and dead ball.

Re: Re: Still looking on your question, BUT
 

BktBallRef, Your quote below;

I looked all through the case book and can't find where they use the rule incorretly. In ever situation I found, live ball fighting was flagrant personal and then dead ball was flagrant technical. This being correct according to the rules.
The rule book 10-3-9, the way I am reading is a dead ball. Fighting being engagement between two or more people. The first punch thrown, if no reataliation is not a fight. So one player punches another that is flagrant personal. The retaliation is flagrant technical and any subsequent punches are fighting and are flagrant technical. That is the way I am reading it.

You're reading the wrong rule and you're reading all kinds of things into this that don't exist. Read 4-18 and 10-3-10.

4-18
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 an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made. Note that no retaliation is required.
ART. 2 An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act toward an opponent that causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting.

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

The rule has no requirement that the ball be alive or dead. It simply says it's a T to fight. It doesn't say it requires two people. It doesn't say contact has to be made. If the ball is live and I take a swing at you, I'm fighting, whether you are or not. That's a T.

10-3-9 is not fighting. If I intentionally push you during a dead ball, that's a T. But is it fighting? It could be but not necessarily.

I agree with both of you.There's a contradiction in the rules,but they also give you direction on how to call 'em in live ball/dead ball situations.R10-3-10 should have "during a dead ball" added to it to be consistent with the rest of the rulebook and casebook. JMO.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by Self I agree with both of you.There's a contradiction in the rules,but they also give you direction on how to call 'em in live ball/dead ball situations.R10-3-10 should have "during a dead ball" added to it to be consistent with the rest of the rulebook and casebook. JMO.

I agree that such a statement would clear it up. But until it does.....

I agee that line need to be added..
 

I still do not constitute a fight by one person swinging. If a A1 from behind turns and hits a B1 in the back during live ball. I am calling a Flagrant personal foul. If nothing else happens we will shoot two free throws and bring the ball in at point of foul.

If B1 were to retaliate, I would now have a flagrant technical on B1.

I do see the point although rare it may be if all of a sudden two people swing at the same time, that would be a fight. I think though I would call a double flagrant person.

In all reality it doesn't really matter but, it should be cleared up by adding the line you suggested.

My only reason for pursuing this discussion really involves the difference between intentional and technical. Too many people do not use them properly. I had a play where A1 was on the ground and as B1 turned to dribble by A1, A1 lifted his leg an tripped B1(intentionally), I called an intentional foul. Both my parnters said they would have just called a technical. I said you can't do that. They were like "What's the difference"?

1.) Now A1 has a technical, a second and he is ejected, and has to sit out two games.
2.) Depending on time of game the location of the throw in could be important.... just two examples there may be more...

This is what I was trying to stress. I do see the confusion in the way this is written though. I guess though I will fall back to 4-19-5c, This says a flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead is a technical. So during live ball I am calling flagrant personal, and dead ball flagrant technical.

Good discussion though............

Re: I agee that line need to be added..
 

I can't really disagree with anything that you've said EXCEPT the statement above. it's a direct contradiction of the rule. "Fighting includes an attempt to strike, punch or kick an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made." As I stated earlier, this clearly states that one person swinging at another is fighting. Nothing else is required.

Quote:

If a A1 from behind turns and hits a B1 in the back during live ball. I am calling a Flagrant personal foul. If nothing else happens we will shoot two free throws and bring the ball in at point of foul.

You're not going to eject A1? But if B1 turns around and swings, you're going to eject him. Or am I misunderstanding you? :confused:

Quote:

1.) Now A1 has a technical, a second and he is ejected, and has to sit out two games.

See, there's a difference. In NC, we don't suspend a player just because he gets a 2nd technical. He must fight, use profanity against an opponent or official, taunt or bait, make an obscene gesture, or disrespectfully address or contact an official. You're in GA, correct? Would they suspend a player who got 2 T's for hanging on the rim?

Quote:

This is what I was trying to stress. I do see the confusion in the way this is written though. I guess though I will fall back to 4-19-5c, This says a flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead is a technical. So during live ball I am calling flagrant personal, and dead ball flagrant technical.

And that's fine. And I agree that when officials call a T for some other live ball foul, they are incorrect. But hopefully, you can see that if someone else chose to call a T for fighting during a live ball, they would be within the rules.

Re: Re: I agee that line need to be added..
 

Quote:

Fighting includes an attempt to strike, punch or kick an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made." As I stated earlier, this clearly states that one person swinging at another is fighting. Nothing else is required....

Agreed, Its just not what I would call fighting, but per rule this is correct so I will use it correctly.. I am still going to call a flagrant personal not flagrant technical since it is a live ball.....

Quote:

If a A1 from behind turns and hits a B1 in the back during live ball. I am calling a Flagrant personal foul. If nothing else happens we will shoot two free throws and bring the ball in at point of foul.You're not going to eject A1? But if B1 turns around and swings, you're going to eject him. Or am I misunderstanding you? :confused....

Thought being flagrant went without saying he is ejected, so yes flagrant personal A1 ejected then we are shooting two free throws and bringing in the ball at point of foul....Unless b1 swings...

Quote:

1.) Now A1 has a technical, a second and he is ejected, and has to sit out two games. See, there's a difference. In NC, we don't suspend a player just because he gets a 2nd technical. He must fight, use profanity against an opponent or official, taunt or bait, make an obscene gesture, or disrespectfully address or contact an official. You're in GA, correct? Would they suspend a player who got 2 T's for hanging on the rim?

Yes Ga... If you are ejected for any unsportsmanship act in the state of Ga., this requires a two game suspension. So yes hanging on the rim would be deemed unsportsman, so he would be suspended. I have to verify, although it could be rare, 1st T for hanging on the rim, 2nd T for illegal number. Since player was actually ejected because of illegal number being 2nd T. What if this was reversed would it be different.. Have to check, will let you know.....

Quote:

This is what I was trying to stress. I do see the confusion in the way this is written though. I guess though I will fall back to 4-19-5c, This says a flagrant contact foul while the ball is dead is a technical. So during live ball I am calling flagrant personal, and dead ball flagrant technical. And that's fine. And I agree that when officials call a T for some other live ball foul, they are incorrect. But hopefully, you can see that if someone else chose to call a T for fighting during a live ball, they would be within the rules.

I defiitely see the confusion, and it could very easily be cleared up with that additional line in the rules.


____________________________

Then it's all good!!! ;D

Dexter started all this, then he doesn't even bother to show up! :)

Shall we discuss batting the ball in the air while running down court? :D

Which brings up the question--"whatever happened to Slider/Zimp?".