Theoretical question - ball off an opponents head

[bearclause]

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bearclause

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.

[BillyMac]

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.

[Juulie Downs]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

i agree.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Works for me!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Adam]

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

[Nevadaref]

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.

[just another ref]

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