This statement is misleading, suggesting that fighting is always (at least) a double foul.

4-18-1 goes on to use the phrase ''regardless of whether contact is made."
I have heard it stated that a fight starts with either the beginning of the first punch or the act which provoked it. Either way, the ball is dead at this point, so the sequence afterward is irrelevant. I subscribe to this theory.

I disagree with both parts of this. First, fighting does not take 2. This video is one such case. If the first victim maintains his composure (or loses his balance), it's possible for a fight to be one sided and thus only one ejection.

2nd, it matters because the fouls both have to be the same in order to be double fouls. A flagrant personal and a flagrant T cannot be double fouls by definition.

So, in the video, if you call a flagrant personal (live ball contact) and a flagrant T (let's assume the player retaliated) for dead ball contact. You'd be shooting FTs for both with the instigating team getting the ball.

If you call double Ts, no FTs and POI.

You can't call double personal fouls because the 2nd foul would be during a dead ball.

They probably didn't see the punch.

Okay, I see your point. It takes two to make a fight. But if only one punches, and the other

a. runs away
b. takes it without a response
c. falls to the floor

only one is penalized.

But even in this case, can fighting be a personal foul? A single punch, perhaps.
Anything beyond that, the penalty encompasses the entire action, part of which happens after the ball is dead, making it a T. Yes?

Interesting, thanks for the reference. I was just looking at the rule rather than the case play. I'll have to think about this.

4-18 defines fighting, but doesn't specify personal or technical.
10-3-8 lays out the penalty, a "flagrant foul." While it doesn't specify P or T, it falls in the technical section.

When I had a fight break out a few years ago, it was what normally would be a flagrant personal (bear-hug wrestling take down) followed by retaliation. The state (Iowa) told me we should have ruled a double T (plus another T for a teammate jumping into the mix). I'm not saying they were right, but it gives a bit of insight into the mindset at the top.

How did you rule? I think a double flagrant something or other is warranted for actively fighting players. If there is a disparity in the players fighting, all the penalty summary says is to award two shots. In this case, I suppose it is technically a T since there is no restriction on who shoots them at the ball is awarded at the division line.

The situation where is truly matters in my view is if you have an isolated act.

What we have here is a rule and a case that offer conflicting rulings. The rules say that it is a T to be charged with fighting (no other qualifications are listed). The case says it is a personal foul since it was a live ball.

Since a fight is the combative act that exists with or without contact, I'm going with the T if I deem it a fight. It doesn't make sense to have a lessor penalty for contact than for no contact (who shoots...specific player or any player). Another option is that you could deem the act a flagrant personal foul but not a fight.

It doesn't really matter since the player will be ejected. Sure, the shooter may change and the throwin spot may change, but those are not really major in this particular scenario compared to the ejection/suspension of the player.

The official ruling? "Charlie Foxtrot."

We screwed up the FTs some how; probably adrenaline and a whole bunch of issues.

I ruled a FP on B1, followed by two FTs on A1 and A2. A FT followed on B1 for behavior on the bench before we could shoot any shots.

Based on that ruling, we should have shot free throws for every foul. I can't remember what we did with free throws, but it wasn't correct.

Based on the state ruling, we should have had Double Ts (on A1 and B1) followed by separate Ts on A2 and B1 (false double). Shoot B's shots, then go down and shoot A's shots. Ball to A at division line.

The way I read the rule now, I'd be inclined to say the state had it right. To me, I'd rather give the harshest penalty justifiable, which would mean (in the video) a T since anyone can shoot.

I can live with both what you and Camron are saying. The important thing is to get the offender(s) out of there and the reports filed.

Agreed.

You can also consider the person that "instigated" the fight as also part of the fight if they did not throw a single punch. In other words if the person says, "Your mom wears combat boots" and the opponent reacts and punches the person as a result, then you gets both of them. But that is not automatic at all or what the rule says.

And I am not under the impression that fighting is always a dead ball foul as it can take place during a live ball. That being said if that is the case I am sure this is in the definitions.

Peace

Don't think so, Snaqs.

See case book play 10.4.5SitA re: opponents punching each other during a live ball. Note the RULING that states "A1 and B1 are charged with flagrant fouls and are disqualified, but no free throws result from the double PERSONAL flagrant fouls." Couldn't be clearer. Note that also dovetails in neatly with the description of flagrant fouls in 4-19-4....."A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature.... If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as striking, kicking and kneeing. .... Fighting is a flagrant act." Also note that the definition of fighting as defined in rule 4-19-1 is "an attempt to strike, punch or kick..."

Fighting during a live ball is a flagrant personal foul, by rule. Fighting during a dead ball is a flagrant technical foul, by rule.

See case book play 10.4.5SitA, as already cited. Live ball flagrant fouls for fighting are personal fouls. Dead ball flagrant fouls for fighting are technical fouls, as per case book play 10.4.5SitB.