The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 02:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 7,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
Fighting takes at least 2, so if it's a double flagrant, it really doesn't matter whether it's personal or technical, the penalty is the same.
This statement is misleading, suggesting that fighting is always (at least) a double foul.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 02:15pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
How about 4-18?

I'm penalizing a landed punch with a flagrant personal foul because of the contact. Although the contact was preceded by the "attempt" referred to in 4-18-1, I'm not penalizing that separately.

That's similar to the idea that contacting the ball while it's still in the thrower's hands is a T, despite being preceded by a throwing-plane violation.

Any flagrant fouls after the first one will be T's because the ball is dead.
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 swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove

Last edited by just another ref; Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 02:19pm.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 02:21pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
Fighting takes at least 2, so if it's a double flagrant, it really doesn't matter whether it's personal or technical, the penalty is the same.
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 02:22pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by reffish View Post
I like the reaction by the camera, "What?" when the official is escorting the player to the bench for ejection.
They probably didn't see the punch.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 02:24pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
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?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 02:25pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe View Post
What about 4-19-4?

Also, 8.7 Situation A:

8.7 SITUATION A: A1 is attempting the second free throw of a two-shot foul.
While the second free throw is in flight, A2 and B1 punch each other simultaneously.

RULING: Both A2 and B1 are disqualified for fighting. Since this is a double
personal foul,
no free throws are awarded. The ball is put in play at the point
of interruption. If A1's free throw is successful, Team B is awarded a throw-in
from anywhere along the end line. If A1's free throw is unsuccessful, the alternating-
possession procedure is used. (4-19-8; 6-4-3g; 7-5-3b; 4-36; 10-3-8; 10
Penalty 1c, 8a(1))




Similar verbiage found in 10.4.5 Situation A
Interesting, thanks for the reference. I was just looking at the rule rather than the case play. I'll have to think about this.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 02:32pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron View Post
How about 4-18?

I'm penalizing a landed punch with a flagrant personal foul because of the contact. Although the contact was preceded by the "attempt" referred to in 4-18-1, I'm not penalizing that separately.

That's similar to the idea that contacting the ball while it's still in the thrower's hands is a T, despite being preceded by a throwing-plane violation.

Any flagrant fouls after the first one will be T's because the ball is dead.
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 02:44pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 02:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe View Post
What about 4-19-4?

Also, 8.7 Situation A:

8.7 SITUATION A: A1 is attempting the second free throw of a two-shot foul.
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com

Last edited by Camron Rust; Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 02:58pm.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 02:54pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 02:59pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 03:05pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Agreed.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 03:14pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 28,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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?
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
__________________
"When the phone does not ring, the assignor is calling."
--Black

Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 03:46pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Yep. Fighting is 10-3-8, and it doesn't specify anything about contact or live ball. Section 10-3 is labeled "player technical."
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.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 03:50pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
can offside rule be made easier and better? Steven Gottlieb Soccer 11 Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:00am
Even easier T w_sohl Basketball 11 Fri Dec 19, 2003 01:14pm
New FED rule: appeals required, made easier Patrick Szalapski Baseball 33 Thu Oct 18, 2001 02:06pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:36pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1