NF Swinging Elbows Signal

[BktBallRef]

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You'll wake him!!

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Self
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"?

I understand and agree with you completely - I've also corrected partners who wanted to call a T for something similar to this.

However, I see many people who think that an intentional foul is a category all by itself - that is what I am trying to stop. As to the difference between flagrant P or T for fighting, it's no big deal which you call, but I'm just trying to point out that a flagrant T is proper.

BTW, Tony, I haven't responded much because you're doing your usual splendid job of explaining the rules.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
As to the difference between flagrant P or T for fighting, it's no big deal which you call, but I'm just trying to point out that a flagrant T is proper.[/B]

A flagrant T is NOT proper in this sitch,where the ball is alive when the fight breaks out.The ruling from CB play 10.4.4SitA says "A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified,but no free throws result from the double PERSONAL fouls". CB10.4.4SitB says that they are flagrant technical fouls IF the fight occurs during a dead ball/clock stopped situation.Self's got the right call,and I'd bet Tony would call it the same way,too-even with the conflicting language of R10-3-10.I know I would.

[Self]

As I have mentioned in other discussions, don't want to bring them up or we will have another 50 pages...haha. The rule book does have some blank spaces in it. That is where our judgement must come into play.I beleive that this is one of them. The rule & cases below all show live ball is flagrant/personal dead ball is flagrant/techincal.

DEAD BALL:
Rule 4-19-4, Techincal involves DEAD ball contact.
Rule 4-19-5c, Technical on contact while ball is DEAD.
CB, 10-4-4sitD, Flagrant technical while ball is DEAD.
CB4-19-7sitAA, (b) DEAD ball double techincal.
CB4-18-2, Taunting DEAD ball deemed fighting, flagrant technical.

LIVE BALL:
Rule 4-19-1, personal foul, contact during LIVE ball.
CB, 10-4-4sitA, Flagrant personal while ball is LIVE.
CB, 10-4-4sitb, Flagrant personal while ball is LIVE.
CB, 4-19-12sit, references case book 10-4-4 as FLagrant personal while ball is LIVE.
CB4-19-7sitA, (a) LIVE ball double personal.

EXCEPT:
10-3-10, Be charged with fighting.. This is the only one that does not reference fighting in live ball or dead ball. It just references fighting... All others reference live ball fighting as Flagrant personal, and dead ball fighting as flagrant technical. I believe it was either left out by error or was just stating that fighting CAN be a technical and didn't clarify that, to be a technical it must be during a dead ball.

To me there are too many examples of the correct way to call it..........


[Edited by Self on Jul 28th, 2002 at 10:17 AM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Self
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 meant to comment on this yesterday,just to get a point across.In this case,when A1 takes a shot at B1 and B1 retaliates,I would call a double flagrant personal foul for fighting.Why?
1)If you call it fighting,you got a double flagrant personal foul,which means no FT's and an AP.
2)If you call it your way,that means it is a false double foul-and A is gonna get the ball back after the FT's(under Fed rules,not sure about NCAA anymore).
3)You therefore are rewarding the player that started the fight(and his team) if you go with the false-double foul.
Technically,I can get away with calling it a fight beacause double-fouls are defines as occuring at approximately the same time.That's the way that I'd go.JMO.

[BktBallRef]

I'll post this one more time and then I'm done.

1- There's nothing in the rule book that says fighting during a live ball is a personal foul. If I've missed it, then please point it out for me.

2- The rule book does say that fighting is a technical foul.
10-3-10
A player shall not:
Be charged with fighting
Penalty: Flagrant technical foul

3-The rule book does say that fighting can occur during a live ball.
4-18
Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live.

The case book refers to it as a personal. You certainly entitled to use that interpretation. But the rule book states it's a flagrant T. I do not see anything wrong with going by the rule book. The only difference in any of this is where the ball is spotted for the throw-in. You still have ejections, and probably suspensions. You may have FTs or you may not. So, quite frankly, it doesn't matter to me how each of you call it.

But we are not wrong for calling a flagrant T. We may be in disagreement with the way you call it, but we are not wrong.

Here endeth the lesson.

[Self]

As I said in my last post:

All references of live ball fighting as Flagrant personal, and dead ball fighting as flagrant technical. I believe in 10-3-10, it was either left out by error or was just stating that fighting CAN be a technical and didn't clarify that, to be a technical it must be during a dead ball.

I sited 4 examples in case and rule for each that substantiate mu discussion. I am not saying you are wrong. I just do not beleive you are using the correct understanding of the rule. You obviously don't agree with me, so we will agree to disagree..

Jurassic on your clarification I agree I would call them both Flagrant personals, as long as they were fairly close together. If there was dead time in between I might have to go flagrant personal then flagrant T. I see your point but by rule if the realiation wasn't instantaneous I would do it this way... Good point though....

BktBallRef, Do you not agree that in the rule 10-3-10, it possible thatit was either left out by error or was just stating that fighting CAN be a technical and didn't clarify that, to be a technical it must be during a dead ball. Since all references in case book say Flagrant personal, and that it states in rule 4-195c that deadball contact is a technical.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Self
BktBallRef, Do you not agree that in the rule 10-3-10, it possible thatit was either left out by error or was just stating that fighting CAN be a technical and didn't clarify that, to be a technical it must be during a dead ball. Since all references in case book say Flagrant personal, and that it states in rule 4-195c that deadball contact is a technical.

No, I don't agree that it was left out. Fighting was added to the rule book prior to the 95-96 season. With respect to our discussion, the definition has not changed and 10-3-10 has changed at all.

Fighting is not striking, puching, or kicking an opponent. Fighting is ATTEMPTING to strike, ATTEMPTING to punch, ATTEMPTING to kick, ATTEMPTING to instigate. It is an act, whether contact is made or not. You can't have a personal foul without contact. You can have a technical. If there is contact, the act precedes the contact. Personal or technical, it's your choice.

Again, I have no problem with your interpretation. It's backed up by the case book. Mine is backed up by the rule book. Just because yours is correct doesn't mean mine can't be. Just because mine is correct doesn't mean yours can't be.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Self
I believe in 10-3-10, it was either left out by error or was just stating that fighting CAN be a technical and didn't clarify that, to be a technical it must be during a dead ball.

While I agree with Tony that this is not a mistake, it does not matter. If the rule is printed incorrectly (or they leave something out) and there is no editorial bulletin saying there is a mistake, the rule stands as printed.

Also (as Tony has said), I reiterate - fighting is more than just the punch. If fighting during a live ball were limited to a personal foul, then, by rule, you could have this scenario:

*A1 tries to punch B1, but misses (he's off balance)
*B1 retaliates and punches A1.
*B1 is charged with a flagrant personal foul, A1 takes 2 FT's, and A gets the ball at the point of the foul.

[Self]

What about rule 4-19-4 and 4-19-5 are you just going to forget about those. Listen I am not saying you guys are wrong. All I am sayiung is maybe yoiu could see that possibly it is the way I mentioned it.

[/B][/QUOTE]While I agree with Tony that this is not a mistake, it does not matter. If the rule is printed incorrectly (or they leave something out) and there is no editorial bulletin saying there is a mistake, the rule stands as printed.

Also (as Tony has said), I reiterate - fighting is more than just the punch. If fighting during a live ball were limited to a personal foul, then, by rule, you could have this scenario:

*A1 tries to punch B1, but misses (he's off balance)
*B1 retaliates and punches A1.
*B1 is charged with a flagrant personal foul, A1 takes 2 FT's, and A gets the ball at the point of the foul. [/B][/QUOTE]

As far as the above, the swing and miss would be a flagrant personal and as stated before by Jurassic and I agreed the immediate swing afterwards would be also.

I have sent this to my contact at NFHS, we'll see next week how they view it.

I do find one thing interesting though. I have conceded on numerous occasions that I see it your way. Is it too much for you to do the same........

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Self
What about rule 4-19-4 and 4-19-5 are you just going to forget about those.

No, are you? 4-19-5b says a technical foul is a noncontact foul by a player. Hello? McFly?

As far as the above, the swing and miss would be a flagrant personal and as stated before by Jurassic and I agreed the immediate swing afterwards would be also.

That is absolutely WRONG! A player swings and misses and you're going to call a PERSONAL foul? Read the rule above. Even Jurassic will agree with me here. You cannot have a personal foul without contact! Read 4-19-1.

I do find one thing interesting though. I have conceded on numerous occasions that I see it your way. Is it too much for you to do the same........

Good grief, Self. That all that I have done. Read my previous posts!

"Again, I have no problem with your interpretation."

"The case book refers to it as a personal. You certainly entitled to use that interpretation."

"I can't really disagree with anything that you've said EXCEPT the statement above."

All of those statements tell you that I don't disagree with you. Good grief.

Hey, we all agree so lets end it!

Good times!

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Self

As far as the above, the swing and miss would be a flagrant personal and as stated before by Jurassic and I agreed the immediate swing afterwards would be also.

WHOA! TIME OUT!!!

There's no contact, but you're going to call a personal?

Think this over.

4-19-1: "A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live."

If you have no contact, you cannot have a personal foul!

However, you must note that the converse (please excuse me if I'm mixing up my logic terms), a foul which involves contact with an opponent while the ball is live is a personal foul, is not necessarily true. Definitions only work one way unless specified otherwise - this is not one of those exceptions.

Look at it this way:
(A) Texas is a state.
(B) All states are Texas.
[No wise-a$$ remarks from the Texans, please! ]
You can have a state that is not Texas (Virginia, for example) but it does not invalidate statement A.

[Jurassic Referee]

Self,when I made my comments,I went by the sitch that you outlined-i.e.A1 hits B1 in the back.I agree 100% with Tony and Mark that if it's a swing with no contact,it can't be a personal foul but has to be a T.The retaliation would be a T also-and I'd personally call it a double flagrant technical foul,so that the instigator doesn't benefit.In this case,R4-19-1 defines it as flagrant,and it has to be a flagrant T.That's consistent with all the rules that have been quoted so far.Don't forget that the casebook play I quoted as a double-personal foul also clearly states that they punched each other,not attempted to punch each other.

[Self]

In my zest and zeal to respond I did not elaborate correctly...

First BktBallRef I included you when I actually meant to only refer to Mark... I apologize your comments have been appreciated. I for lack of better words, seeing it both ways is also appreciated. Mark I am not saying your comments aren't appreciated, just wish you could agree that the rules and cases I pointed out build my case also and that it is possible NFHS MIGHT agree with me...

As far as the swing and miss being a flagrant personal. I was incorrect in saying this. Since no contact, I would deem this as live ball unsportsmanlike behavior(instigating a fight)and call a flagrant technical, the follwing swing by B1 would recieve the same. The lack of contact makes the difference on if call a flagrant personal.....

We can leave it at this, and when I hear from NFHS I will respond with what they have to say... At least we all are thinking and not just blowing our whistles.....




[Edited by Self on Jul 28th, 2002 at 07:14 PM]

[Camron Rust]

This whole discussion is really the same discussion as the swinging of the elbow (before the recent rule change).

Fighting is a flagrant T. There are no exceptions. The infraction, as has been said, is the "ATTEMPT" to strike, punch, kick, etc. There may or may not be contact. There may or may not be more then 1 player charged with fighting. The T happens the moment the swing is taken, not when(if) it lands.

To call it otherwise penalize the offended team. You force a player who has just taken an uppercut to shoot FTs while their head is still spinning. If there is more than 1 involved, the penalties will largely offset.

After further reading...it does appear that several casebook plays have contradicted this conclusion. However, I can conceive a scenario where there would be live ball contact that would be considered a flagrant personal (live ball) foul that then turned into a fight. You just might have the initial foul that was deemed flagrant but not exactly fighting.

The rules alone are unambiguous. Only the casebook muddies the water. The cases presented are not complete in their description of the events while the rule book unequivically states that fighting is a T and that fighting can occur whether the ball is dead or live.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Jul 29th, 2002 at 01:29 PM]