Anyone see anything yet on the new NF swinging Elbows violation mechanic?

Yes
 

You just swing your elbow backwards once it appears. I saw the signal in "Referee Magazine." I'm almost sure I saw it on the NF website.

Peace

The new signal is the exact same as the NCAA signal.Raise one arm with the elbow bent and parallel to the ground,and use a backwards movement.
P.S.-check behind before using.:D

Re: Yes
 

Yep, they did add it to the NFHS site. Here is the link to the updated sig chart PDF.

http://www.nfhs.org/PDF/Basketball/BBsignals.pdf

Larks

Re: Re: Yes
 

Looks like they got rid of the jump ball.

Re: Re: Re: Yes
 

You would notice that! :)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes
 

Maybe they couldn't agree: two hands, two thumbs, two index fingers. Can't wait for the POE.

Re: Re: Re: Yes
 

Isn't it #4,mick?

Multiple guess.
 

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee Quote: Originally posted by mick Looks like they got rid of the jump ball.

Isn't it #4,mick? [/B][/QUOTE]

<li>Didn't see two index fingers
<li>Mick can't see.
<li>Mick can't read (even with all those pictures).
<li>All the above.
<li>Some of the above.
<li>JR just added the picture.


Thanks.
mick

I'd have to agree with JR, mick. Looks like #4 to me!

I thought the hearing was the first thing to go, mick! :D

It ain't.
Just had it checked.
I'm good.
...But, I have spent years honing the art of "Not-listening".

Hearing aids,bi-focals,Viagra-us old guys don't really care anymore.We're covered!
Did I mention Depends?

JR,
Are you PO-ed?
http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/bones.gif

Like the butcher said when he dropped the meat cleaver in his lap, ....

Absolutely beautiful!!Whereinhell did you come up with that?

...Whiskers from the softball board. ;)

<hr>
Give credit where it's due.

In rec leagues (or for some of those 'overly demonstrative' college officials) doing the "Funky Chicken" dance is also an accepted mechanic.

Bonus points for college refs if they get the cheerleaders/dance squad to go along. :p

<img src="http://www.saoa.faync.com/animation/chicken.gif">

Now <b> that's </b> presence!

Z

I thought that was the mechanic for a T on a coach who squawked too much!

WHY?
 

Why would they put "excessively swinging elbow(s)/arm(s)" in the violation section? I would have it in the FOULS section.

BTW: I am still alive and kicking.:)

Re: WHY?
 

Because officials would not call it because the book said T the kid for something that often times had no contact with the defender. Thats an excessive penalty for no contact.

2 plus ball plus foul on the kid - ouch!

This way you have the option to call a foul (technical?)if there is contact but just a violation in the event of no contact and still clean it up.

I like the change myself.

Larks - Senior Rookie

Larks you can't call Technical.
 

Larks if there is contact you could have a no call depending on severity, a player control foul, and intentional foul, or a flagrant intentional, but you can't have a technical..........

Re: Larks you can't call Technical.
 

Good point. Better said than I could have.

Thanks

Larks

Re: Larks you can't call Technical.
 

A1 fouls B1.

After the mess gets up from the floor, B1 retaliates with an elbow to A1's head.

Call? Technical foul (probably a flagrant one, at that).

BTW, there's no such thing as a "flagrant intentional" foul - it has to be one or the other (and then, tacked on to either a personal or technical).

Mark That goes without saying if you tack
 

on your extra activity like you did. Because now you have a dead ball. Now it can be technical.

As far as Flagrant Intentional I would disagree.If it is during a live ball and a player slugs another you have a intentioanl foul that is flagrant. By rule 4-19-3 an intentional foul can be personal or technical. In this case it is personal since it is a live ball. Then since you deem it flagrant, it is a flagrant intentional foul, intentional being the type of PERSONAL foul you have. So you would shoot your free throws and bring the ball in at teh spot of the foul. It is probably symantics but thats teh way I read it.

Pont being too many times people are calling a technical for live ball contact, when they should be calling intentional. That is what I was trying to get across. There can be big ramification of changing the game by calling a technical when you should be calling an intentional...

Re: Mark That goes without saying if you tack
 

Can't agree with your semantics,Self.Intentional foul is defined in R4-19-3 and flagrant foul in R4-19-4.They're two different and separate animals-and never the twain shall meet.You gotta call it one or the other.If you look at the "summary of penalties" on P65,#4 says "two free throws if intentional OR flagrant".

Look at the third line of 4-19-4
 

It says It may or may not be intentional. So if someone slugs during a live ball, it is a personal foul that is intentional and it is flagrant. That is the way I read it.

Re: Look at the third line of 4-19-4
 

Rephrase it to read "it may or may not be <em>deliberate</em>". The intent in this line was not to bring in the defined intentional foul but to describe that a flagrant foul can occur with our without intent.

They are indeed two distinct infractions...although they share several common attributes. The penalty is identical except for the disqualification of the offender.

I agree that with the new rule change, there are no occurances of live ball contact other than fighting that can be considered a technical (or at least that I can think of).

I concur that I misread
 

I agree that there are two distinct fouls Flagrant personal and intentional personal...I read to much into it.

As far as the rule change there wasn't before and there still isn't any live ball contact that is a technical. The only technical that can be called during a live ball is a non contact techincal.

If a fight breaks out during a live ball between two players the first foul is a flagrant personal, the second foul is a flagrant technical.

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

Re: Mark That goes without saying if you tack
 

You can have an intentional personal or a flagrant personal (or a common, PC, or airborne-shooter personal fouls) - by rule, however, only 2 of the labels can go together (common and PC).

To have an 'intentional flagrant' foul would also not work for two reasons:
(1) The flagrant foul generally includes any and all activity which warrants an intentional (i.e., someone is only convicted on Murder 1 rather than Murder and Manslaughter 3).
(2) By rule, you would shoot 4 (or 6) free throws - 2(3) for each foul - flagrant personal and intentional personal.

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?".

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

You'll wake him!! http://www.stopstart.btinternet.co.uk/sm/moresleep2.gif

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

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. :D

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

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.

Rule book not all incompassing
 

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]

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

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.

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.

I think My last post pointed out numerous situations
 

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.

Re: I think My last post pointed out numerous situations
 

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.

Re: I think My last post pointed out numerous situations
 

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.

You guys have got to be kidding...
 

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........

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

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.

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.

Quote:

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! :D

Re: You guys have got to be kidding...
 

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! :D]
You can have a state that is not Texas (Virginia, for example) but it does not invalidate statement A.

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.

Too much Zest an Zeal.......
 

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]

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]

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