Theoretical question - ball off an opponents head

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

I think that there is a difference between violent conduct and fighting, but perhaps that's just because I also officiate soccer.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I think that there is a difference between violent conduct and fighting, but perhaps that's just because I also officiate soccer.

Fair enough, but when I look at this I have two questions.

1. Does this fit the rule, by word, for "fighting?" I think it does. It's a combative act between opponents.

2. Does it fit the spirit and intent of the committee? This is more difficult to determine, generally, but I fail to see how this doesn't fit the intent.

[just another ref]

Suggestion: Lump them together.

10-3-6: A player shall not commit an unsporting foul. This includes.......acts such as:

i. fighting.

[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.