Fight!!!!!!!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I've got an intentional on the first foul on 23.

I've watched it a couple times... I'm not even going to get in on the free throws because I can't tell how many came off, who did what, etc.

But I do know that:
For white: 10, 42, 24, 5, 32 (?) are players
For black: 23, 14, 20, 12, 21 (?) are players

White 10, Black 23, Black 15, Black 22 are all ejected.

White ? would have been whacked too for going over and doing that little chest bump with one of the crowd members.

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.

[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 representing

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.

That rules tells us that a non-fighting act, such as taunting, can turn into an act of fighting and warrant a flagrant technical foul, IF THE OPPONENT RETALIATES BY FIGHTING. It does not work in the reverse order.

[representing]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That rules tells us that a non-fighting act, such as taunting, can turn into an act of fighting and warrant a flagrant technical foul, IF THE OPPONENT RETALIATES BY FIGHTING. It does not work in the reverse order.

Ok, gotcha now. Thanks for the clarifying that for me. So then yes, I would DQ both of them. He did retaliate by pushing, which lead to an even bigger fight.

I honestly think after that punch, if the kid didn't push back, this whole thing wouldn't have started. Doesn't look like anything was brewing up until that push after the punch happened.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by representing

Ok, gotcha now. Thanks for the clarifying that for me. So then yes, I would DQ both of them. He did retaliate by pushing, which lead to an even bigger fight.

I honestly think after that punch, if the kid didn't push back, this whole thing wouldn't have started. Doesn't look like anything was brewing up until that push after the punch happened.

So following the shove by White #10, which opponent retaliated by fighting? Please specify the offender and what he did that constituted fighting.

[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?

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

No...but he did...

Forget white #10 shoved black #23 in the torso... lets say he shoved him like that in the head/face.... dumping white #10 now?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by tjones1

No...but he did...

Forget white #10 shoved black #23 in the torso... lets say he shoved him like that in the head/face.... dumping white #10 now?

But he didn't. So what's yer pernt?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

No...but he did...

Forget white #10 shoved black #23 in the torso... lets say he shoved him like that in the head/face.... dumping white #10 now?

My point is judge each action on it's own merit. The only basis in the rules for doing otherwise is the specific provision in 4-18-2. My advice to not get caught up in the emotion of the situation.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My point is judge each action on it's own merit. The only basis in the rules for doing otherwise is the specific provision in 4-18-2. My advice to not get caught up in the emotion of the situation.

I agree... and do so.

I'm just saying a kid punched another kid, then that kid shoved/pushed that kid.

I'd be surprised if the Fed said the shoving/pushing wasn't flagrant...but I could be wrong.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I agree... and do so.

I'm just saying a kid punched another kid, then that kid shoved/pushed that kid.

I'd be surprised if the Fed said the shoving/pushing wasn't flagrant...but I could be wrong.

If the two actions clearly aren't on the same level, then the penalties shouldn't be either.

The punching of an opponent is obviously flagrant. However, the shoving of an opponent may or may not be. I think that the shove to the back of the head that black #23 delivers to white #5 is flagrant, but that the shove from white #10 to black #23 is at the level of an intentional technical foul for dead ball contact.

Just my opinion.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I agree... and do so.

I'm just saying a kid punched another kid, then that kid shoved/pushed that kid.

I'd be surprised if the Fed said the shoving/pushing wasn't flagrant...but I could be wrong.

As Nevada said, an act that instigates a fight is itself a fight. Not the other way. If the 2nd act is not a fighting act, it is not a fighting act.

[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]

The more people make the case for a flagrant T or even for a regular T, the more convinced I am I wouldn't call anything on W10.

I am willing to allow a little reaction to a punch in the face. In other words, I'm going to penalize what started this and understand that a player is going to stand up for himself after getting hit in the face.