Fight!!!!!!!
 

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 am not a psychologist, but I did stay in a Motel 6 last night.

I think #23 might have some anger management issues.

From the comfort of my couch, I probably would've had an intentional on the original foul. Did the officials deem that the players that came off the bench participated in the fight?

First off, I would've called that an intentional foul, maybe flagrant depending on the HTBT situation.

Second, I would like to commend the official who decided to step back and let game management and security take over. He also probably stepped back to start taking a visual image of all the players who came from the bench. Some of the guys were easy to spot, as they had their warmup shirt on over their jersey.

I would hope something like this does not happen in one of my games, unfortunately it did happen in a JVB's game last week which I heard about and the officials didn't really do the technicals and all properly (from what i heard, I was not there).

This is a question I ask several different officials, including those that have seen fights break out. How do you know who are the floor players and who are the bench players if something like this were to happen, especially if some bench players are in their jerseys and not in their warmups? Do you go to the book? Even they might not know who are the current players as they just check off who's been in the quarter so far.

Perhaps NFHS might make it mandatory for bench players to wear their warmups or something to distinguish them from floor players? This would be like Pro soccer, where the subs must wear something over their jerseys. But that's because they can run up and down the sideline to warm up before going in, and it could get confusing for players as to who is on the field and who is not.

ADDED: One last thing. I'd like to commend the white team for not having a single player come from the bench. I took a closer look at the end of the video and it looks like the original 5 players were the only on the court, no one from the white team (except maybe for coaches to come in and help break the fight) .

I felt bad for the kid who got punched. Can't tell if he said something or not, but he tried to retaliate and got nowhere

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.

Yeah, you can do that watching a video, but how would you know as an official on the floor who the 10 players are when a fight break out? NFHS doesn't allow you to use video to review it.

Not trying to be cocky, I just want to know what you would do in this case. The bookkeepers might not know if there's been a lot of subbing done in that quarter.

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? :(

It's tough and you may not know. You might know a few of the players who were in, but likely not all five. Some scorers keep a running list of who is in the game at any point, but most do not. At the NCAA level this record is available, if there is electronic score-keeping.

Fully realizing the video can't show it all I didn't see bench players for black fighting so the coach probably shouldn't have been dumped. If true then the FTs were not handled properly either.

Would anyone disagree that the original foul was flagrant?

So its highly possible that if the player on the floor is not in a warmup and despite their being more than 5 from one team on the floor that you can't eject them unless they are actually fighting?

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.

Not sure what others will say, but in the aftermath if it is possible you can segregate any players still on the bench from those who went on the court. Then you get who you know were players at the time, then you can ask who was on the court at the time and go from there.

Bottom line, get the teams separated and take your time to get everything, including the penalties, as right as you possibly can.

10-4-5

Coach wasn't beckoned on from what i can see in the video. He get's a Techincal foul.

Player left bench during a fight, all of them at DQ'd regardless. For each offender that gets involved with a fight, that's an additional Technical. All the player that left the bench, I don't think they got involved with fighting, but only came on to calm things down. Only one T is given to bench, which is also an Indirect to the coach. Coach now has one T on himself and an indirect from bench.

Since white doesn't seem to have anyone leaving bench, you shoot two FTs only and ball is at POI.

Did I read this right accordingly to the rulebook? I hope you guys are proud of me for actually opening up a rulebook now before running my mouth haha.

First, let's correct a few things in your post to make it readable.

Now, if I understand your point, you are contending that a team member off the bench, who isn't observed fighting, might get away with the disqualifying offense of leaving the bench area because with only his uniform on, not a warm-up top, he would look like a player.

There is much truth in that.

1st foul
 

If the T official had called the first foul on #24 white for the foul from behind....maybe #23 doesn't do anything....not likely.... but they should have gotten the first one

If a fight like this breaks out no way I'm whacking a coach who comes out unless he isn't trying to break it up. He's beckoned as far as I'm concerned.

I was thinking that. When things settle down, tell coaches to keep those that left the bench on the playing court. He could get a Technical for not following the referee's order, couldn't he? wouldn't that fall under Unsporting?

I was just saying as far as the rulebook is concerned he should be T'd up. I probably wouldn't have whacked him as far as I'm concern, as long as he helps to break sh*t up.

Nevada is certainly right that it's possible in the melee to miss someone who comes off the bench but then returns there. This is why many states will review video any time there has been a fight and dole out additional suspensions/punishment regardless of whether they were 'caught' at the time.

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:rolleyes:

Since you are actually making an effort, I'll post a few specifics to help you.
1. Players are the five who are legally in the game. Team members are sitting on the bench. Substitutes are the team members who replace the players by going to the table (or sometimes incorrectly going straight from the bench into the court). So, you can't have "players" leaving the bench.

2. It is not an additional T for a team member to leave the bench and fight. It is merely a different category with a different penalty. The team member is already getting a flagrant T for leaving the bench during the altercation. He doesn't get another one for fighting.

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.

So is this correct:

Since no one actually got involved, only one T to the bench, coach gets Indirect and sits while all the team members who left bench are DQ'd. But, if any players are involved in a fight, I thought that was another Technical for anyone, and they would shoot 2 FTs additionally to anyone who "fights" as to what the rulebook defines "fight" as.

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.

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.

Ya think?!?

I think the first one has got to be flagrant. It was way, way past anything related to basketball.

As far as all the aftermath, you do the best you can to keep track of who's where, and try to remember the rules.

I also think that W kid chest-bumping the spectator, and doing some inciting before that was flagrant. And that crowd cheering for whatever was also way scary. I'd rather see them hurling invective and screaming angrily than cheering for their opponents being bad. That really bugs me.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

Flagrant for the kid in white pumping up and celebrating with his crowd? Wow.

I posted the time remaining and the score already in this thread. I believe that the crowd was cheering because they were about to win, despite all the mess from the flare up.

Frankly, I was amazed how calm all of the people standing along the end line were during the altercation.

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

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.

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.

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.

Coach was beckoned...trust me...

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?

Absolutely.

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.

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.

We should talk about this more.

I gotta say, my first reaction was nothing at all on the player in white. After taking a punch to the face, his reaction was pretty mild and I could see myself not penalizing this at all. Am I the only one who is (sorta) willing to go there?

The crew certainly improperly administered the penalites here. In addition to assessing the technicals improperly, #20 from Hoover comes off the bench and throws at least two punches at the kid who was originally punched.

That being said, anyone who blames this fight on the crew for not calling a common foul prior to the fight, is an idiot.

I would REALLY like to agree with this given that the kid got punched in the face, but in this situation with everything else that is going on, my inclination would be to penalize it all. At the end of the day the "T" on this kid for the shove back is not going to even register on the list of things that occurred. Unfortunately I don't believe we are given the leeway to allow for any degree of physical retaliation no matter how mild....now with that said I would have no problem (and would privately cheer you:)) for not penalizing him.

Nope. I'm saying that imo the most you could call is a regular "T" on the kid. And that's a htbt/judgment call that I wouldn't question. I also wouldn't question anyone that wouldn't call anything on the player in white. You sureasheck are allowed to defend yourself...and he didn't swing at the opponent while doing so. He just pushed the kid away.

So I gotta say that I personally agree with you as to it being a no-call.

For the life of me, I can't see how anyone could call what he did "fighting" though.

Again, jmo......

The reality is that without the benefit of monitors it's unlikely the officials are getting it all. What they *did* do, however, shows they haven't studied the rules lately (if at all).

Agree completely, there is no excuse for the way they administered. I was just saying that everything I saw would be penalized. To be honest after watching it again I could see not penalizing the kid for pushing back, it was more of a "get away and stop punching me shove" than it was retaliation. And after he did that he even sort of ducked behind a couple other players so the kid wouldn't come after him..

Smart move. That wasn't going to end well for him otherwise. :D

If I can justify not punishing a kid who got punched first, I'm not going to. The two fights I've actually officiated, I didn't have that option, though.

I agree. And you'd have rules backing to pass on calling a foul on white: dead ball contact deemed not intentional (i.e. excessive) or flagrant.

Had one kid punch another in a grade school game probably almost 20 years ago, other than that nary a punch/fight in 17 yrs of high school games...lucky I guess. Watch this Friday:eek:

Another thought, not to derail but. . .

Watch the calling official on the original foul (never mind if it's flagrant, intentional, team control, or charge as he signaled). After he calls the foul, he is immediately moving to the table...if he holds his position for one more second, he is in position to get between those players and potentially defuse the situation before it gets out of hand.

Just a reminder to not always be in such a hurry.

Good point - especially when you have a non-basketball play (the two-handed push to the back of the head) to start the action. Always a good idea to make sure the situation is under control before leaving.

And the type of foul requires the officials to step in and be vigilant. I mean, it's at least intentional, probably flagrant. It doesn't appear to be called that way -- I mean, the official gives a player-control signal.

Why would the official ever be in a rush to get away from something like that?

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.

#20 Airballs on his two swings, he doesnt come close to making any contact. But he should be gone.

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.:D

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

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.

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.

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.

After another look I see what you are talking about JR... however, white #10 also took a fist full of black #23's jersey with his other hand.

While I agree that it was probably natural for white #10 to grab the arm closest to him, black #23 was turning and walking away. Then white #10 took a step and shoved him.

I certainly can't blame white #10 for doing what he did after he got jacked. But if I only had one look at it and I saw what white #10 did I would of had a flagrant technical.

Again, I think it'd be interesting to see what the Fed's ruling on this would be. I would have a hard time believing they would allow white #10 to stay in the game... but who knows.

B23 still has his hand in W10's chect. I can see why W10 is going to push away the person who just jacked him the face if they still are making contact, whether W23 is walking away or not. Remember that this happened second after he was just jacked in the face with absolutely no provocation.

I can see that point of view, but I simply disagree (after viewing the video). I don't blame W10 for reacting that way, but I've got a T here. I don't believe he did it solely for protection.

A T I can see, someone else has a flagrant T and I struggle with that. As quick as it occurred, I see it as a mix of instinct and protection.

I haven't even seen the video...I am at work, and You Tube is blocked...but, I just have to give an opinion. (Mainly because I RARELY get to disagree with JR);)

The "Good Book" says "turn the other cheek"...I'm not really sure if the Rule Book has precedence...but, this White #10 doesn't sound like he "turned the other cheek".

White #10 got INVOLVED. (pushed back)

KISS...Keep It Simple Stupid...principals apply.

I don't want to have to make these minute decisions (was it a defensive push, or was it protection, or what was it?) after a big melay like this...just "KISS" and eject accordingly.

You'd like to think a coach would tell his players, at the beginning of the season, if anything like this were to ever happen, that his bench players should stay put. What a mess to have to sort out. Glad it was someone else. Also, lots of and way too many fans who aren't sitting in the bleachers. These people need to find seats or get out of the gym. Not the responsibility of the officials, but it would make their jobs a little easier.

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.

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.

In a fight in my game, as long as the coach is 1) a peacemaker and 2) handling his own players, we will deem him beckoned onto the court regardless of whether we actually told him prior to him coming on or not. I want the head coach out there to pull his kids away. Likewise, I want the assistants to handle the bench.

This can only help us out.

The biggest problem I see is that the officials did not have control of this game. There is NO FREAKIN' WAY I am letting the crowd linger on the sideline or baseline as they are doing here. If they have to come and go there, fine, but I insist that someone keep them moving.

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.

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.

I can see the case for a regular T, and on my first viewing of the tape, I was inclined to call that. There is absolutely no way though I'd run white 10 in this situation.

Fixed it for ya...:)

And he defended himself without throwing a punch, etc.

There is just nowayinhell W10 and Black 23 deserve equal penalties for their respective acts.

Maybe the FED needs an "instigator" rule like NHL hockey to make sure that a person that starts a fight gets punished accordingly.

This situation reminds me of one of the best pieces of game management I ever saw -- when Jerry Markbreit ejected Charles Martin back in the 1980s:

OK, that's the NFL, but it was the play in my head when I saw this tape.

The thing I took away from that play is that a foul of such a heinous nature will yield some kind of response. The question is -- is it a reasonable response considering the heinous nature of the original foul and would penalizing the response take away from the deserved penalty of the original foul.

In this situation, the player commits a flagrant (at least intentional) foul and then punches a player not even involved in the situation in the face. A flagrant technical, no doubt. W10 then responds with a mild shove. While I would be happy to give a technical, even a flagrant technical, if W10 repsonded with a punch or even a wild swing, this response was nothing compared to the original punch to the face. I do not expect a player to simply walk away after getting punched in the face. I do not think W10's reaction was out of line considering.

Anyway, that's my reasoning. That shove would be a technical foul in a lot of situations, but here I'm passing on it. Maybe. It's easy to watch a film a few times and decide over a cup of coffee what you're going to do.