Theoretical question - ball off an opponents head
 

Just curious.

Suppose a player is ticked off about rough play being allowed and deliberately/obviously aims the ball directly at an opponents head when inbounding (or possibly when the ball is in play) the ball and the opponent has his back turned. I'm thinking possibly a flagrant technical foul for unsporting conduct, with ejection.

I suppose it might also depend on the rulebook used.

I took out the irrelevant portions. :)
Yes, this would probably be a flagrant T, at least an unsporting T. Frankly, I'd consider this fighting as no player needs to be on my court with that attitude.

Throw-in strikes opponent in face
 

10.3.6 SITUATION B: A1 has the ball out of bounds for a designated spot
throw-in. B1 is putting great pressure on and the count is at four seconds when
A1 throws the ball and it strikes B1’s face. The ball rebounds from B1’s face
directly out of bounds. RULING: The administering official will have to make a
decision based upon a number of observations. Was the throw-in to B1’s face
purely accidental or was it a voluntary, planned act? Was the ball contact caused
by the movement of the defender? Was the act of a an unsporting nature? The
administering official must be aware that players often react negatively in situations
where they are frustrated or are retaliating for something which happened
earlier in the game.

i agree.

Works for me!

That would be a stretch by the book definition.

RULE 4, SECTION 18 FIGHTING
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 by using a fist, hands, arms, legs
or feet regardless of whether contact is made.
ART. 2 . . . An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act that
causes a person to retaliate by fighting.


In my opinion, you would be better off sticking with an flagrant unsporting T as supported by 4-19-4 and 4-19-14.

I don't think it's much of a stretch, Nevada. It seem pretty combative to me.

I prefer to not point to the "not limited to" part of a rule for support. If there is something more appropriate in black and white, I go with that.

I don't deem something to be fighting just because it is unacceptable and I don't like it. I make sure that it is actually fighting, not just could be fighting.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.