Theoretical question - ball off an opponents head

[just another ref]

Are your ejection reports that detailed that you must specify which kind of flagrant technical foul was called?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Are your ejection reports that detailed that you must specify which kind of flagrant technical foul was called?

No, but the follow-up with the commissioner and those from the state office could certainly be. When and if I find myself in that situation, I prefer to have proper justification for what action I took as an official. From my experience, these people will back the official, if one can show them a rule supporting the action taken in black and white.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

No, but the follow-up with the commissioner and those from the state office could certainly be. When and if I find myself in that situation, I prefer to have proper justification for what action I took as an official. From my experience, these people will back the official, if one can show them a rule supporting the action taken in black and white.

Same difference. So, if asked why the ejection, and you said "Flagrant T. He threw the ball hard and hit his opponent in the head." they might actually ask further whether you considered this to be a fight or merely an unsporting technical?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Same difference. So, if asked why the ejection, and you said "Flagrant T. He threw the ball hard and hit his opponent in the head." they might actually ask further whether you considered this to be a fight or merely an unsporting technical?

This question would certainly be asked as "fighting" carries a severe penalty from the state office, while a non-fighting ejection would make the offender subject to a much lesser sanction.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This question would certainly be asked as "fighting" carries a severe penalty from the state office, while a non-fighting ejection would make the offender subject to a much lesser sanction.

Interesting. So if A1 sucker punches B1, and B1 punches back, they are both looking at the same penalty? And both of them are in bigger trouble than A2, who upon his fifth foul, grabs the scorebook and starts to tear out pages while screaming F bombs to the rafters?

[Nevadaref]

In a nutshell, that's the way it works. The state office reserves the right to levy harsher penalties than the minimum at its discretion depending upon the manner in which the individual offended. However, fighting carries the stiffest of listed sanctions. I don't see why anyone would have difficulty fathoming that.
I didn't write the regulations for the governing authority, but in this regard they are clear and make sense to me.

I know of one case in which the instigator of a fight received a suspension which was three times as long as the individual who retaliated.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I know of one case in which the instigator of a fight received a suspension which was three times as long as the individual who retaliated.

Fair enough. The point being that each case does receive individual attention and is not rubber stamped based on any single word, whether that word be fighting or something else.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Interesting. So if A1 sucker punches B1, and B1 punches back, they are both looking at the same penalty? And both of them are in bigger trouble than A2, who upon his fifth foul, grabs the scorebook and starts to tear out pages while screaming F bombs to the rafters?

Thank you for that visual. I was reading through this thread with genuine interest until this line caused me to spit Pepsi on my monitor.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Same difference. So, if asked why the ejection, and you said "Flagrant T. He threw the ball hard and hit his opponent in the head." they might actually ask further whether you considered this to be a fight or merely an unsporting technical?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This question would certainly be asked as "fighting" carries a severe penalty from the state office, while a non-fighting ejection would make the offender subject to a much lesser sanction.

And if I was asked that question in follow up, I would answer in the affirmative. Just because the player used a "foreign object" doesn't mean it's not fighting. All it does is extend his range. If the state wants to disagree with my definition, so be it. They'll have all my information.