Fight in girls game - sort of

[tref]

Your boyfriend's a dork... Nice no call! lol

Let say:

B1 shoves A1 in the back while airborne for an open court layup. A1 gets up & punches B1. A1 is charged with a flagrant T & B1s intentional personal is what instigated it.

We're tossing B1 as well, correct?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by tref

Your boyfriend's a dork... Nice no call! lol

Let say:

B1 shoves A1 in the back while airborne for an open court layup. A1 gets up & punches B1. A1 is charged with a flagrant T & B1s intentional personal is what instigated it.

We're tossing B1 as well, correct?

Really? I don't grade the severity of a foul based on the emotional reaction of the one who got fouled after the physical consequence of the foul has ended.

[VaTerp]

If the "tall" girl's initial reaction was just to toss you the ball and did not escalate until the defender said something to her AFTER the defender had already committed an intentional foul by pushing her in the back, then I don't have to hear what she said. Both are getting tossed. Or at the least, the defender is also getting a T to go along with her intentional.

[Da Official]

Originally Posted by vaterp

if the "tall" girl's initial reaction was just to toss you the ball and did not escalate until the defender said something to her after the defender had already committed an intentional foul by pushing her in the back, then i don't have to hear what she said. Both are getting tossed. Or at the least, the defender is also getting a t to go along with her intentional.

+1

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by da official

+1

-2

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tref

Your boyfriend's a dork... Nice no call! lol

Let say:

B1 shoves A1 in the back while airborne for an open court layup. A1 gets up & punches B1. A1 is charged with a flagrant T & B1s intentional personal is what instigated it.

We're tossing B1 as well, correct?

No.

And, if you do, then B1's IP is really an FP.

[tref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No.

And, if you do, then B1's IP is really an FP.

I guess I'm reading 4-18-2 wrong then...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tref

I guess I'm reading 4-18-2 wrong then...

I guess so.

[Eastshire]

4.18.2
"A1 dunks over B1 and then taunts B1. B1 retaliates and punches A1. RULING: Both A1 and B1 are charged with a flagrant technical foul for fighting and are disqualified. A1's action is defined as fighting when the taunting caused B1 to retaliate by fighting. (10-3; 10-3-6c: 10-3-8)"

I charge the defender with both an intentional foul for the push and a flagrant technical when what she says causes the tall girl to retaliate by fighting.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

4.18.2
"A1 dunks over B1 and then taunts B1. B1 retaliates and punches A1. RULING: Both A1 and B1 are charged with a flagrant technical foul for fighting and are disqualified. A1's action is defined as fighting when the taunting caused B1 to retaliate by fighting. (10-3; 10-3-6c: 10-3-8)"

I charge the defender with both an intentional foul for the push and a flagrant technical when what she says causes the tall girl to retaliate by fighting.

+1

I agree - both players get tossed. If the verbal taunt leads to a fight it's treated as fighting.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

+1

I agree - both players get tossed. If the verbal taunt leads to a fight it's treated as fighting.

And if I had heard her taunt the other player, that's probably what I would have done. But I didn't hear what she said. She might have just said, "Sorry" or something else like that. Maybe the tall girl was just upset that she got pushed and wanted to retaliate and the words meant nothing at all.

My point is that I wasn't going to assume the defender taunted the tall girl. All I would need is for her coach to ask me what she said to deserve an ejection and I'd have to reply, "DUH, I dunno?"

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tref

I guess I'm reading 4-18-2 wrong then...

The key words in 4-18-2 are "unsporting act". Intentional fouls aren't regarded as being unsporting in nature. Flagrant fouls can be, as Bob said.

[tref]

Yezzir! Unsporting technical fouls are non-contact.
Definitions, definitions, definitions.

[NoFussRef]

"Right, you don't upgrade the first foul but in this case it's pretty clear there was a second (flagrant technical) foul by the defender. It's a completely separate issue from the first foul."

One could argue that it is clear as mud there was a Flagrant T by defender.

If OP didn't hear what defender said, how do we know she didn't sincerely say to Tall-girl "I am sorry for the intentional foul." ?

Maybe the slap was the result of all the pressure of being taller than everyone in her class building up and she just snapped... (humor me)....

All we DO KNOW is OP called the Intentional Foul.

Anything happening after that is a new and separate issue.

I don't think we can say "Gee that hard foul I called on the defender making a play on the ball seemed to have upset the shooter, guess I better "upgrade" the foul to intentional or flagrant."

[Loudwhistle]

Originally Posted by tref

Your boyfriend's a dork... Nice no call! lol

Let say:

B1 shoves A1 in the back while airborne for an open court layup. A1 gets up & punches B1. A1 is charged with a flagrant T & B1s intentional personal is what instigated it.

We're tossing B1 as well, correct?

No, An intentional personal foul was called here on B1 not a flagrant. Now if there is verbal taunting from B1 then ejecting B1 is a possibility.