But when does the ball become dead? A1 punches B1. Ball is dead. A split second later, B1 punches back. Are the double flagrants personal or technical. Answer. Undefined? And it really doesn't matter. Both are gone.
POI

You can over-analyze the freaking play until Doomsday, JAR, but the RULES say its a double flagrant personal foul if the fight occurs during a live ball, not one flagrant personal and one flagrant technical.

Paralysis through analysis again.

Yeah, but. True, the case play you cite calls it a double personal, although, as stated above, I have a problem with it. Next, one size doesn't fit all. Same play, except A1 swings and misses, B1 returns fire and lays him out. Double flagrant, both are gone. A1 foul cannot be personal because there was no contact.

And, as also stated above, personal or technical, it really doesn't matter in this case.

Yes, it does matter, because if one is personal and the other is technical, they are not a double foul. False double.

Hard to tell exactly, but I disagree. It looks to me like he is looking right at the kid when it happens. Either way, he got it (mostly) right.

Put me in the "flagrant personal" camp. This has been discussed at great length before. I used to be on the technical side. I think it was Tony who changed my mind.

So if B1 were able to retaliate, and did, you'd have a false double?

I'm good with treating it as double personal, as I consider it to be all one event. As I said earlier, double personal, double tech. Doesn't matter IMO as long as they are both tossed and we don't shoot.

But it does matter, because by rule you can't call the 2nd one a personal foul. The ball is dead. I'm not talking about two players who suddenly start punching each other, like in the case play. There's a discernable time difference between act 1 and act 2.

A1 punches B1, B1 falls down, holds his nose, gets up, punches A1, and now the two go at it with A4 taking bets.

By rule, you could have a Flagrant personal (I suppose) followed by Flagrant Double Ts, but I don't think that's what the committee wants here. You can't have double personals, but I think you can justify double Ts based on the rule.

You can't strictly justify double T's either because the first was not a technical. I think the intent in this situation is to treat the whole fiasco as one and not shoot if there an equal number of participants.

The penalty for fighting in the book only refers to double fouls and never really specifies what exactly they are.

yeah, but.

What difference does it make if you have a problem with it? You have the same problem with blarges. There's rules I don't particulary like either. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

And one size does fit all unless you want to change the parameters of the "all". In the play being discussed, "all" is all double contact fouls for fighting during a live ball. You're talking about a completely different play re: the missed swing and subsequent retaliation. Now you're into an initial non-contact situation where you penalize the total act. Apples and oranges....and a completely different "all". And you use different rules for the oranges. In the missed swing followed by retaliation, you use case book play 4.18.2 as a guide and issue a double flagrant technical foul. The rules concept remains the same though....live ball contact fouls are personal fouls and live ball non-contact unsporting acts are technical fouls. One rule for the apples; one rule for the oranges.

I'd have a double flagrant personal foul as per case book play 10.4.5SitA. That's definitive and I don't know how anyone can deny it's existence.

I didn't deny its existence. It's not the same situation. It's two post players punching each other, then play is stopped. In the video, play is stopped before the punched player can even get off the floor. You going to call his retaliation a double flagrant personal?

I don't know how you can call a personal foul when the ball is clearly dead.

You penalize the total act including retaliation.

Are you seriously trying to say that if there's a fight, we always need to catch whomever threw the first punch? The first punch would be a flagrant personal foul and an immediate retaliation would be a flagrant technical foul?

If that's the logic you're using, I suggest you contact your IAABO board interpreter and get him to run that one up the line for you. If you don't think the language of the different case book plays that I cited applies, nothing further that I can say would be of any help or value.

Please let us know the answer though when you get one back.

Sure it exists, but so does:

10-3 PLAYER TECHNICAL
A player shall not:
ART. 10...Be charged with fighting

and

4-18 FIGHTING
Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:
ART. 1 . . . An attempt to strike, punch or kick an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.

The case plays cited simply don't agree with the above rules covering fighting.

Rule 4-18 says that fighting is the "Attempt to strike". It says it can occur when the ball is dead or live. It says it doesn't matter if there is contact or not. So, we have fighting on the attempt to strike.

Rule 10-3 says that fighting is a T with no further qualification.

The case play cited came into existence in the timeframe when several poorly worded interpretations and case plays were implemented....ones that were inconsistent with the rules behind them and long standing history of how things were interpreted.

Given what is in the books right now, whether they are correct or not, there is enough there to support either conclusion....therefore, whichever type of foul an official calls is fine with me. The practical difference is minimal as in most cases, you're going to two or more people fighting and I'm tagging both of them with the same kind of foul since the acts will be at approximately the same time. And once you tag them both with the same kind of foul, there is no difference in the administration....no shots...POI.

First of all, where did I say we always need to get the first punch. Frankly, that seems to be what the case plays apply to, a fight where we don't know the first punch; and it frankly doesn't matter whether you call double personals or double technicals because the administration is identical.

Second, what did I say that could even imply I was thinking that. I'm not saying that at all. I'm not even thinking it.

I'm asking about a situation where the first punch is obvious, and there's a 2nd punch that comes after the whistle but pretty damned quickly.

I'll spell it out again, only slightly different:
1. A1 punches B1.
2. B1 falls to the floor.
3. R blows his whistle for the fight.
4. B1 gets up and throws a punch at A1, but he misses.

Are you calling: A flagrant double T (first foul was live ball contact)? A flagrant double personal (second foul was dead ball no-contact)? A false double?

I recognize this is largely academic, in that actual administration is going to likely be a double foul, no shots. But it's academic exercises like this that help me understand rules better.

I'm ok with calling the video a flagrant personal foul, based on the case plays even though I think either the case play or the rule needs to be revised to match the other.