Camron,I can't agree with you on this one.
1)Casebook play 10.4.4.SitA clearly defines a fight during a live ball.It actually uses the specific language "fight".
2)The ruling states that the original participants are charged with double flagrant personal fouls.Again,they are very specific that the fouls charged are personal and not technical.
3)Case book plays,as you know,are officially rules.This is stressed in the preamble at the front of the casebook.The exact wording is "The interpretations and rulings for all situations have been approved by the rules committee and are official".
I do,however,agree(and already have) that you can certainly call technical fouls in this exact same sitch,according to the language elsewhere in the rule and case books.I guess that's why this is an interesting thread,even on it's second go-around.
JMO.

In the case you cite, were the intial punches a fight or just a basic flagrant personal fouls? Does the reference to "involved in the fight" imply that it was intially a fight or that it evantually grew into a fight? That is not really stated. It say sthat the two players "begin to punch each other". I interpret that to say that there was additional activity beyond the initial scuffle. The intial conflict may not have been declared a fight, but with escalation (as or after the ball became dead) it became a fight...especially when the other players came onto the floor.

An explantion like this is the only way I can think of to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the rule (which is stated very clearly) and the case book (which is, at best, incomplete).

Of course, in this case, it will not matter since, in either case, the penalties will offset and both players are ejected and the possession will go with the arrow.

I interpreted the CB play as a straight fight,mainly because there were no additional penalties listed for A1 and B1 for any escalation after the punches,plus there was no mention of anything preceeding or succeeding the altercation between the two.The initial conflict(punches)sure fits the official definition of a fight under R4-18,also.I agree with you that it doesn't really matter as long as you call it a double flagrant something,and not a false double of some kind.The language does need to be cleaned up.I believe Self has written away for an official interpretation on it.

NFHS Ruling
 

Below is the response I received from Mary Struckhoff of NFHS. Also my full email is attached. She agrees that a live ball fight is a flagrant personal and a dead ball fight a flagrant techincal. She proposes that 10-3-10 needs further explanation, which would make it a techhical if the fight occurred during a a dead ball.
_______________________________________________
I agree with your interpretation of the live-ball and dead-ball situations.Â* If you would like to propose an editorial change to further explain Rule 10-3-10, feel free.

Mary
_______________________________________________

Mary,Â* I hope this email finds you doing well. I would like your thoughts on the below discussion... Thanks in advance.... Basic question is if a punch thrown during a live ball is flagrant personal or flagrant technical. I say
flagrant personal and I sight the examples below. Although the last example is a little contraditory, what do you think?

Below is a discussion regarding fighting and a discrepancy in the rule and case book. Although the differences is minor I was interested in your interpretation... Thanks in advance for your thoughts......

Rule book not all incompassing As I have mentioned in other discussions, the rule book does have some blank spaces in it. That is where our judgement must come into play.I believe 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.

EXCEPTion:
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 involving contact, it must be during a dead ball.

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

I noticed you didn't ask her about the situation where a punch is thrown but no contact is made. By rule, there's no way this can be called a personal foul. It has to be a technical. I don't care what her title is, if she can't understand that, then she's in the wrong job.

She most certainly should make editorial changes to 10-3-10 if she wants a personal foul called for fighting. Solidify the rule to match the interps in the case book and things will work fine.

Geeze,three days later and I STILL agree with both Self and BktBallRef!The language definitely needs to be cleaned up to cover the contact/no contact fight situations during a live ball.Contact should be a flagrant personal,no contact should be a flagrant technical,and instant retaliation to either should be the same call as the first one you make-making it a double foul.

I already clarified that...
 

Your below quote:

I already agreed with you in my previous post. So I didn't need to ask. I new that this was correct....
As far as your below quote:
I will write something up and summit it.... I also just received the interpretation back from the state interpreter. He agreed with NFHS on live ball flagrant personal, dead ball flagrant techincal. He stated that 10-3-10 is stating, as I said earlier that fighting is a technical(non contact fighting), but you have to use all the rules to make your judgement. Those other rules being being 4-19-4&5. These clarify live and dead ball contact or non contact. A swing and a miss can be deemed fighting, no contact though so it is a technical. He said it should be added to 10-3-10, but it was always interpretted to be there, by use of previous rules.




[Edited by Self on Jul 30th, 2002 at 04:04 PM]

IAABO ruling
 

I just received back a ruling from my IAABO board contact. He also agreed with NFHS and the state interpreter. He said that 10-3-10 is just stating that fighting CAN be a techincal. That 4-19-4&5 let you know when a technical can be given and when a persoal can be given.

He also said a line should be added to make it clearer. To be a technical with contact, the ball has to be dead..

Re: I already clarified that...
 

I understand that. I just wonder what her thoughts are concerning it.

This has been a very interesting thread...I've enjoyed the lively debate.

For some additional discussion, I thought I'd post a rule change for the 2002-2003 season for women's college ball.

"Rule 10-12, 10-16: The distinction between a flagrant personal foul and a flagrant technical foul will be eliminated. The offending player will be ejected; two free throws will be granted to any member of the offended team; and the ball will be returned to play at the closest spot to the foul. Rationale: Previously, whether or not the ball was live or dead determined which type of flagrant foul was called. Now, the effect will be the same no matter if the ball is live or dead."

Hopefully this change will flow-down to NFHS within a year or two.

Now wouldn't that be a helluva lot simpler?

Amen to that!

Speaking of the 02-03 rules changes, does anyone know if the NCAA 2002-03 books are available yet?

NCAA books
 

Not yet Mark....

I ordered mine a couple of weeks ago, and the time frame was in mid September I believe.

One more ruling
 

My IAABO contact went ahead and forwarded my question to the head of rules interpretation Roger MacTavish. Below is his answer, which agree with what has been said so far. He does explain a little more why dead ball is not mentioned in 10-3-10.

Kevin:
Â*Â*Â* You are correct it is a flagrant personal foul but I do not see any discrepancy in the rule or case book. If a punch is thrown and strikes a player and the ball is live, it's a flagrant personal foul. If it occurs while the ball is dead it's a flagrant technical foul. However you can have a technical foul while the ball is live. If a player uses profanity or throws a punch orÂ*attempts to kick a player and does not strike the player while the ball is live, that is a flagrant technical foul and the fighting rule is invoked. That is why in RuleÂ*10 Section 3 Art 10 "Be charged with a fight." does not state whether the ball is live or dead. It can be either. In all the Case Book plays it tells in the play if the ball is live or dead. Remember all dead ball contact fouls are intentional or flagrant technicals. Throwing a punch while the ballÂ* is live and missing is a flagrant technical foul. It's an unsportsmanlike act.
Check the following:Rule 4 Section 19 Art 1; Rule 4 Section 19 Art 5; Rule 4 Section 19 Art 13; Rule 4 Section 18
Â*Â*Â* I hope this helps. If not get back to me.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Roger