Theoretical question - ball off an opponents head

[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.

[mbyron]

I would like to add a point that might be implicit here: namely, that fighting is not the only reason for calling a flagrant foul. Clear intent to injure is also one, and deliberately aiming the ball at an opponent's head serves no other purpose, so...

I have no idea whether fighting receives special treatment in my state or whether the first-punch thrower gets it worse, or anything else about sanctions. That's all above my pay grade: I just call the foul and write the report.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I would like to add a point that might be implicit here: namely, that fighting is not the only reason for calling a flagrant foul. Clear intent to injure is also one, and deliberately aiming the ball at an opponent's head serves no other purpose, so...

I have no idea whether fighting receives special treatment in my state or whether the first-punch thrower gets it worse, or anything else about sanctions. That's all above my pay grade: I just call the foul and write the report.

Wonderful for you.

Now the debate has been whether the action constitutes fighting or is simply a flagrant technical foul for unsporting conduct.
Care to make a choice?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Now the debate has been whether the action constitutes fighting or is simply a flagrant technical foul for unsporting conduct.
Care to make a choice?

Why not?

The act being discussed doesn't meet the definition of fighting as outlined in rule 4-18. It does meet the definition of a flagrant technical foul under 4-19-5(b) & 4-19-4.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Why not?

The act being discussed doesn't meet the definition of fighting as outlined in rule 4-18. It does meet the definition of a flagrant technical foul under 4-19-5(b) & 4-19-4.

That's what I wrote back in post #6, but several others disagreed.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's what I wrote back in post #6, but several others disagreed.

And I still do. In the end, it really doesn't matter. The kid is done for the game regardless. When the state gets the info, they'll make their choice for the proper sanctions. Out of my hands, and whether I use the term "fighting" isn't going to affect that.