Fight!!!!!!!

[Judtech]

I am glad someone else noted that #20 black came out of nowhere and threw some punches, and then kept following the W player.
Other than one was a live ball foul and one was a dead ball foul (granted AFTER a punch) what was different about the foul #23 and #10 committed? Both were two handed pushes. I would go flagrant on the live ball push and vanilla "T" on the dead ball push. And looking at the physical stature of #10 I would THINK about tossing him, FOR HIS OWN SAFETY!!! He DID prove he could take a punch, but regardless!
Having not been there, the calling official may have been getting information from the trail official in regards to "Upgrading" the foul. He may have only seen the W player lunge forward and B arms extended. The Trail may have seen that the push was flagrant. They may have been getting together to exchange information
Finally, isn't there a little blurb about a player "popping" his jersey? THAT should have been a "T" as well.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

And looking at the physical stature of #10 I would THINK about tossing him, FOR HIS OWN SAFETY!!!

Please tell me that you were kidding when you wrote that.

If not, that statement ties for the dumbest ever made on this forum.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Please tell me that you were kidding when you wrote that.

If not, that statement ties for the dumbest ever made on this forum.

Yes I was joking, although the thought of holding the title "Dumbest Post Ever Made" is a very tempting.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Yes I was joking, although the thought of holding the title "Dumbest Post Ever Made" is a very tempting.

It's a very high bar. So high, in fact, you'll only be able to tie it no matter how hard you try.

[tjones1]

I dunno... I guess I'll be the lone one here but I'm still getting rid of white #10.

After getting decked, he basically took a full step toward black #23 as he was walking away and shoved him in the back.

Again, just my take on the situation.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I dunno... I guess I'll be the lone one here but I'm still getting rid of white #10.

After getting decked, he basically took a full step toward black #23 as he was walking away and shoved him in the back.

Again, just my take on the situation.

If white #10 had shoved black #23 like that during a dead ball with no other action would you have run him?

I totally defend your right to run him, but the rationale would need to be the same regardless of other action.

Personally this is getting a T from me, and would at any other point in the game. It's not flagrant, IMO. He's also not getting a pass from me because B23 punched him. It was not to protect himself.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tjones1

After getting decked, he basically took a full step toward black #23 as he was walking away and shoved him in the back.

Take a look at #23's right arm. He puts it on the l'il guy after the cheap shot, #10 kinda holds it for a second so that 23 can't smack him again with it, and that arm doesn't come off until #10 pushed him away.

#10 didn't retaliate by fighting. He protected himself from getting another cheap shot.

can't agree at all with you on that one, Tanner.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Take a look at #23's right arm. He puts it on the l'il guy after the cheap shot, #10 kinda holds it for a second so that 23 can't smack him again with it, and that arm doesn't come off until #10 pushed him away.

#10 didn't retaliate by fighting. He protected himself from getting another cheap shot.

While I agree with you that W10 doesn't commit a flagrant foul, I disagree he shoved to protect himself. B23 is walking away from him when he shoves him.

[bas2456]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I dunno... I guess I'll be the lone one here but I'm still getting rid of white #10.

After getting decked, he basically took a full step toward black #23 as he was walking away and shoved him in the back.

Again, just my take on the situation.

You're not crazy. I agree with you. Instincts and all, he did what he did, and what he did, to me, falls under 4-18-2. What he did clearly incited the original sucker-puncher to come back at him looking for more.

I'm running him.