Fight!!!!!!!

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't agree that W10 deserves a flagrant. A T, yes, but after taking a smack to the face, he merely pushed the offender. A DQ for him is not in proportion to the action.

I can agree with a T for the crowd interaction (taunting) by the player from White.

W10 retaliated by pushing the offender...while I agree the action isn't as harsh as the punch... he's gotta go.

Agree to disagree.

[representing]

Originally Posted by tjones1

W10 retaliated by pushing the offender...while I agree the action isn't as harsh as the punch... he's gotta go.

Agree to disagree.

Found this in the rulebook:

4-18-2

An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act that causes a person to retaliate by fighting.

Now, when the B player punched the W player, that would instigate a retaliation. Rule of "fighting" is "an attempt to strike, punch or kick ..."(4-18-1). I don't think pushing would be considered striking, would it? Pushing is its own foul, so I wouldn't consider it flagrant for a light push like that, especially compared to the hard punch he just took to the face (surprised he seemed to have absorbed the punch pretty well, no stumbling or nothing!).

So in my mind I'm thinking just a dead-ball technical foul.

So I'm agreeing to disagree with you. Actually had a coach say that to me last year after a game, didn't think an intentional foul that I called on his player was an intentional. A little back an fourth he said "fine, let's just agree to disagree" and left. I've used that in several games since with a coach.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

W10 retaliated by pushing the offender...while I agree the action isn't as harsh as the punch... he's gotta go.

Agree to disagree.

Forget that he was punched by #23 Black. Now what would you call for #10 White shoving the opponent as he did?

[Da Official]

Originally Posted by tjones1

W10 retaliated by pushing the offender...while I agree the action isn't as harsh as the punch... he's gotta go.

Agree to disagree.

tjones, I'll definitely take you up on that one. I disgree. A minor push in the back after getting slapped in the face should absolutely NOT result in an ejection. Now if the push knocks a player down or really agressive I can agree with an ejection.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't agree that W10 deserves a flagrant. A T, yes, but after taking a smack to the face, he merely pushed the offender. A DQ for him is not in proportion to the action.

I'm not sure I even give him a technical foul for the shove. It was a fairly mild reaction for getting punched in the face.

OK, I probably would, but it certainly wouldn't be flagrant.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'm not sure I even give him a technical foul for the shove. It was a fairly mild reaction for getting punched in the face.

OK, I probably would, but it certainly wouldn't be flagrant.

Agree with a regular "T", at most. The kid was defending himself. He pushed an opponent away who had just nailed him; he didn't swing back. What was he supposed to do? Stand there and let the kid take another shot?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by derwil

Area 6A 1st round - Birmingham, Alabama

Hoover (black) and Spain Park (white) are in town rivals:

YouTube - Spain Park vs. Hoover Basketball Fight

Sooooooo watcha got???

After the fiasco, the referees dumped the big kid for Hoover, 6 Hoover players off the bench, assesed the HC 6 indirect for the players leaving the bench and tossed him too. Hoover ended up with 5 players the rest of the game. The referees also let Spain park shoot 16.....yes 16 free throws - 2 for the original foul 2 for the flagrant on the big fella and 12 for the players on the court.

Now don't shoot the messenger.....that's what the crew did.

And YES I know the first foul isn't a charge...should have been team control or intentional.

Anyhow...just thought I'd share this wonderful moment in area basketball with the world.

Sound like another instance of the officials not knowing the fighting rules.
This all happened with 28.9 left in the 4th quarter with the home team (I assume White) leading 46-35, so it would not have impacted the outcome.

(I do believe that the crew may have missed a common foul by White #24 along the sideline prior to the altercation.)

My take would be:
A. Flagrant personal foul on #23 Black for the two-handed shove to the back of the opponent's head (White #5). I believe this action warrants more than an intentional personal foul.
B. Flagrant T to #23 Black for striking opponent in the face during the dead ball period. This gets reported as fighting.
C. Retaliation shove by White #10 warrants a technical foul. I don't believe that it has to be considered fighting. This would form a double techinical foul with B.
D. For Black #23, #14, #12, #21, and #20 were players in the game at the time. #22, #34, #15, #10, a couple of coaches, and a team member in a warm-up shirt which covers his number, come off the bench. I don't see any of them actually fight.
E. The penalties for D is that all from the bench are DQ'd, ONE indirect to the HC, and TWO FTs to the opponent.
F. Summary: Black #23 is DQ'd, along with all non-players listed in D. White #5 shoots 2 FTs (A). No FTs for double T (B and C). Anyone from White shoots 2 FTs (D). White's ball at the division line opposite the table.


How does a crew of three varsity officials mess up this situation that badly?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My take would be:
A. Flagrant personal foul on #23 Black for the two-handed shove to the back of the opponent's head (White #5). I believe this action warrants more than an intentional personal foul.
B. Flagrant T to #23 Black for striking opponent in the face during the dead ball period. This gets reported as fighting.
C. Retaliation shove by White #10 warrants a technical foul. I don't believe that it has to be considered fighting. This would form a double techinical foul with B.
D. For Black #23, #14, #12, #21, and #20 were players in the game at the time. #22, #34, #15, #10, a couple of coaches, and a team member in a warm-up shirt which covers his number, come off the bench. I don't see any of them actually fight.
E. The penalties for D is that all from the bench are DQ'd, ONE indirect to the HC, and TWO FTs to the opponent.
F. Summary: Black #23 is DQ'd, along with all non-players listed in D. White #5 shoots 2 FTs (A). No FTs for double T (B and C). Anyone from White shoots 2 FTs (D). White's ball at the division line opposite the table.

If you're going to DQ "all from the bench", then you must also be including the head coach in that as not being beckoned and DQ him also. And if you do include the head coach in the "all from the bench", he not only gets DQ'd along with being charged with an indirect "T", he also gets charged with a direct "T" that is penalized. You'd have an additional 2 FT's for that.

If you considered the head coach beckoned and not part of the "all from the bench" though, I'd agree with your take above.

On the original foul called, I'd also agree that it should be flagrant but as always that's a straight judgment call. I wouldn't second-guess anyone who called it an intentional personal foul. I personally can't see a TC foul only though for an act like that.

[Nevadaref]

I actually meant the people whom I listed in D.
However, beckoned or not doesn't matter in my state. The Head Coach is allowed to come out to break up the situation. He is not penalized as long as he is helpful. That's a state reg.

[representing]

just realized, B23 is wearing an illegal shirt, isn't he? Doesn't the shirt have to be completely a solid color? According to 4-1-5 it's illegal, since it is somewhat visible and would be visible while he's playing and the jersey swings around and stuff.

Bad referees

[LocDog249]

Originally Posted by derwil

Area 6A 1st round - Birmingham, Alabama

Hoover (black) and Spain Park (white) are in town rivals:

YouTube - Spain Park vs. Hoover Basketball Fight

Sooooooo watcha got???

After the fiasco, the referees dumped the big kid for Hoover, 6 Hoover players off the bench, assesed the HC 6 indirect for the players leaving the bench and tossed him too. Hoover ended up with 5 players the rest of the game. The referees also let Spain park shoot 16.....yes 16 free throws - 2 for the original foul 2 for the flagrant on the big fella and 12 for the players on the court.

Now don't shoot the messenger.....that's what the crew did.

And YES I know the first foul isn't a charge...should have been team control or intentional.

Anyhow...just thought I'd share this wonderful moment in area basketball with the world.

I'm not sure if anyone said this already, but I find it scary that a playoff crew would award free throws on a team control foul. I realize they messed up with the handling of the fighting rule, but I would think they should at least realize that you don't shoot TC fouls.

Unless the calling official got info from one of his partners and determined that the original foul was intentional, then I have no problem with shooting 2 free throws for the original foul.