Fight in girls game - sort of
 

Had two games last night, first one was a 6th grade "competitive" girls game. Visitors were getting splooched the entire game. Home team had a girl who was relatively tall and she pretty much controlled the game on both ends.

Middle of Q3, one of the visiting girls was guarding the tall girl who was posting up and when she received the ball, the defender just pushed her really hard in the small of the back. I was lead and blew the whistle immediately for the intentional. I didn't think it warranted a flagrant. The tall girl, much to her credit, just turned around and tossed the ball to me. The defender said something to the tall girl (I couldn't hear it) and the tall girl slapped her right across the face! Both teams and their coaches ran off the bench but everyone just kind of stood there, thank goodness. My partner and I broke it up quickly and everyone settled down.

We sorted things out by ejecting the tall girl for the slap, giving each team a bench technical (we thought that was "even"), shooting all the free throws and then getting on with the game. If I had heard the defender use profanity or something similar, I would have taken action against her, but because I didn't hear what she said, I really felt I couldn't do anything specific. There were no more incidents. BTW - the home team won by 35.

Could the INT personal or the defenders words (even though you didnt hear them) have lead to the footers flagrant actions?

Perhaps the defender should've been tossed as well? IJS since were talking "even" (fair) and all.

She might have said something as innocent as "Your boyfriend's a dork". :p

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.

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.

No.

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

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

I guess so.

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.

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.

Even though this was a sixth grade competitive game rather than a sixth grade non-competitive game, I probably would have handled it it the same way.

By rule though, everybody who came out on the court including any of the coaches should have been given flagrant technical fouls and disqualified. The head coaches each get charged with an indirect "T". If the same number on each team leave the bench, there's no free throws and we go to the POI. If one team has more people leave the bench, the other team gets a maximum of 2 free throws and the ball at the division line for a throw-in.

NFHS rule 10 PENALTIES: (Rule 10 summary) #8b(1) if anyone cares..

Got it! The one & only caseplay for this situation is verbal taunting during a dead ball which lead to a punch, so both are ruled flagrant.

INTs which lead to a fight cannot be upgraded.
Thanks!

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.

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.

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

Let me explain the terminology. Around here, there are two "types" of kids programs (except for a very few school MS leagues). They are usually referred to as "competitive" and "recreational". In fact, the "official" name of some of the leagues include the word "competitive" in their titles. While the teams in the recreational organizations certainly try to win their games, their emphasis is on having fun, learning the game and practicing good sportsmanship. Most of the kids in the competitive groups are the better players (or kids whose parents think they're better players :D) and their parents are willing to pay much, much more in registration and uniform fees, plus there's quite a bit of travel around the Metro area. The competitive programs started up about 10 years ago. Prior to that, all kids played in the same programs and there was much more disparity between the playing skills of the players.

And let me explain my thinking.

All sixth grade age and under games are recreational or should be imo. The people that want to label them "competitive" are taking themselves way too seriously. We run into them all the time here during local club tournaments. They all think their 10 year old are playing in the NBA finals.

There's nothing the matter with trying to have the kids play within the skill level they have at a particular time of their development, but the individual skill levels can change real quickly when they're that age. But no matter what, the focus of the coaches should be to (1) let the kids have fun (2)impart some life lessons, and (3) increase individual skills. Winning games should come in around 4323rd place at that age.

Hell, even Calipari doesn't offer the kids scholarships until they're in the seventh grade.

But that's just me generally on all kids sports, Mark, at that age.

+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?"

Certainly, I agree, but around here the competitive groups start at 5th grade for both boys and girls. There's nothing I can do about it except make sure our local kids rec league (of which I am a Board member) acts in the "correct" manner for that age level, which it does. In fact, we start at 3rd grade.

BTW - some of the "competitive" teams actually hire coaches - former college players, etc. I've seen that practice go as low as 6th grade. Unbelievable.

And unfortunate.

...is it sort of like...

Competitive = "A" Squad (varsity)

Recreational = "B" Squad (JV)

...?;)

C'mon Jurassic, we all know by now, ALL Mark's games are in "competitive" leagues, even those that end in 35 point blow-outs! :p

I think you're burying your head in the sand here and failing to punish the player most at fault. The tall girl goes from cool, calm and collected to slap fighting and you're going to assume the defender was apologizing? I don't think you need to have heard what was said here as it was obviously enough to provoke a fight.

As to what to tell the coach, "It doesn't matter what she said, she provoked a fight."

Wondering why you decided not the eject everyone who came off the bench? As JR pointed out, by rule, you should of tossed everyone all those that came off the bench during a potential fight situation. I'd consider someone getting slapped in the face a potential fight situation.

Sorry, but I think it does matter what she said. If you don't know, you can't do anything with it.

10-3-6c "A player shall not commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as: c. Baiting or taunting an opponent."

Whatever she said, it baited her opponent which is an unsporting act. Committing an unsporting act that causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting is considered fighting by rule. Ergo, it doesn't matter what she said.

People generally don't hit people who are apologizing to them. Assuming good intentions by a player who just shoved an opponent in the back stretches my credulity to the breaking point.

You also do not know for sure that the tall girl was nice to the official but not so much to the other player. Unless I hear the smaller girl say something I can't automatically assume she said something. I can't call what I don't see and I can't call what I don't hear. Yes, most likely the girl taunted her but without definite knowledge I am not going to call it.

Thank you. My position exactly. Maybe she did just apologize and the tall girl just wanted to act "macho" (or whatever the female equivalent of "macho" is - "DeGenerist", perhaps?) and slapped her for that reason.

On the other hand, maybe the defender said something that would be considered extremely taunting to a girl that age, like "You're fat". :D

My point is you're not calling what you did see: a player baiting another player into a fight. She doesn't even have to say anything, she just has to commit an unsporting act.

Beyond that you aren't automatically assuming anything. You are using the situation to understand what happened. No call happens in a vacuum. This isn't a player decking someone out of the clear blue.

Really? Imagine this: the tall player made up her mind to slap the defender when the original foul occurred. She then tossed away the ball, heard the defender say "Sorry", and then slapped her anyway.

Is that what really happened? I dunno. But the point is it is at least possible. In any case, I can't assume the defender taunted her without knowing what she said. I am not a lawyer, (and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) but I'm sure that's how it would play out in a courtroom.

And you know that for sure....how?

You'd get blasted out of the water if you ever wrote an incident up like that. All you can put down on a report is what you know. FACTS! and you don't have any proof that a derogatory remark was made to her opponent. You're guessing.

You can't climb on your high horse unless you have a high horse around to climb on. And there ain't a high horse in sight in this one.

I agree with Eastshire. I've had Ts in the past where I didnt hear exactly what was said but it was clear that there was baiting, taunting going on.

Given the context of the situation, its a clear case of baiting the opposing team's best player and it worked in getting them tossed from the game.

IMO, to say that you didnt hear what was said is a cop-out.

+1.

We aren't supposed to guess in situations like this.

Howinthehell can that be a cop-out if it's true?

Lah me......:rolleyes:...another mind-reader.......

Its a cop-out to not doing anything about what you observed. And it has nothing to do with mind reading and everything to do with observing the situation.

Others can disagree. That's fine. I know how I would have reacted, have reacted, and will continue to react in similar situations. And I've written up incidents for Ts where I didnt hear exactly what was said and have never been "blasted out of the water" or even heard a single word back from my assignors or anyone else.

And I've been handling the complaints that come into our association for many, many years. And any complaint composed of "I don't really know what was said but I think it must have bad" is just going to jump up and bite the person who tries to say something like that right in the azz.

Complaints are like the court of law. You have to have facts. And in this situation you don't even have "hearsay" because you didn't hear anyone say a damn thing. You're guessing.

We ain't ever going to agree on this.

Agree, you have to have facts. I am, and have been, VERY comfortable justifying my decisions based on the facts at hand, even without hearing exactly what was said. And apparently so have the people I've had to submit reports to and deal with in 4 different associations.

You're right, we will never agree on this and fortunately, we don't have to.

JR, you don't have to hear anything. B1 doesn't have to say anything to be tossed. I don't have to hear what she says; I just have to determine if she commits an unsporting act. It's blatantly obvious to me that she baited the opponent.

If I'm A's coach, I'm filing a complaint that you don't toss B1 and all you have to say for yourself is you didn't toss the kid that provoked the fight because you're not exactly sure how she provoked it.

I've seen an official issue calls and when asked about what was done/said to warrant the penalty, the official could not give answer. Yikes! :eek:

Just bad news, no matter how one tries to justify it.

But how do you know the player committed an unsporting act if you didn't hear what they said? Short of a player doing something physical (bump chest, give the finger, etc.) wouldn't you have to hear what the player said to determine if it was unsporting or not? What if the player was apologizing for the push in the back, but the fouled player decided she was going to get her payback no matter what and thus the slap to the face?

Well if you can't give an answer then no you have no business calling it.

Good thing I'm capable of giving more than adequate answers that justify my decisions to all who matter.

And that's exactly my point. If someone asked me what the defender said to qualify as a taunt, I wouldn't be able to give an answer. Therefore, according to your own statement above, I would have no business calling it.

BTW - the defender made no gestures or anything like it. The only thing that moved when she spoke was her mouth.

Mark, you never answered the question I asked earlier. By rule, you should of ejected the bench personnel that came off the bench, save the coaches whom I'm assuming were in peace keeping roles, due to a potential fight. Why did you decide to set aside that rule (maybe it's a local rule for your league)?

My point is that I could still give a satisfactory answer about my decision, given the context of the entire situation, without knowing exactly what was said.

But I'm not going to continue to debate that point anymore. As I said, I know how I would have, have, and likely will handle similar situations.

I'm more interested in exactly how you administered everything that you did call?

A1 committed a foul, which was ruled intentional, not flagrant, then said something, you have no idea what, then B1 slapped A1 across the face. So you ejected both.

How do you justify this, sir?

And your "satisfactory" answer would be?

Taking to another player is an unsporting act when you don't have a clue what was said? Are you serious?

If B1's coach filed a complaint as to why you tossed B1, what's your answer? If their league has a mandatory suspension and asks you the same question before suspending B1, again what's your answer? Are you going to say "I tossed B1 for something she said"? If you do, the response that I know that you're going to get is "What exactly did B1 say to warrant her disqualification?" And your and VaTerp's answer if you're truthful is "I did not hear what B1 said."

Eastshire, I've been involved in complaints like this for many years. I know you and VaTerp aren't going to believe this but you both are going to lose one heckuva lot of credibility with both the league and your association if you start tossing players for something they said when you admittedly didn't hear anything of what they said.

Do what you feel you gotta do though. if guessing is your idea of the correct way to officiate, so be it. I'm just telling you my opinion.

Based on the assumption that I have to give her a T even though I don't know for a fact that she said something, if I look back and see a player falling to the floor and a player from the opposing team near her, I must call a foul on the girl because why else would she have fallen down unless she was fouled by the opponent.

I sure don't want to have to explain that to the coach

The game would then have been over and both coaches discussed it then asked us if they could just continue the game without anyone from the benches being ejected because they just kind of walked out to see what was going on, not to get involved. Even though HS rules don't care why they came out, we agreed to continue the game because we wanted to let the kids play.

Uh, she slipped or tripped over her own feet? Oh wait, that never happens in basketball. :cool:

And I suppose every time a player misses a shot when standing next to a defender you call a shooting foul because, after all, why else would the shooter miss a shot unless fouled by an opponent? :o

Yea, I think you get my point ;) Unless I see the foul committed I am not going to call it and if I don't hear a player taunt I am not automatically going to assume that they did if a player slaps them.

"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."

That's true. If they're under 12 years old, he just offers them iPods. :D

+1

-2