The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 03:59pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
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.
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
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 04:08pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 04:13pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
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.
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 04:15pm
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
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 05:41pm
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIAm View Post
I hope I have posted a video I ran across today. I think the L did not see the contact. He only saw action and reaction.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 05:47pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1 View Post
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?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 05:52pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 05:56pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 06:01pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,984
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.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers

Last edited by Welpe; Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 06:05pm.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 06:06pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 06:11pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
So if B1 were able to retaliate, and did, you'd have a false double?
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.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 06:28pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 06:59pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 07:36pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 11,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com

Last edited by Camron Rust; Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 07:40pm.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jan 27, 2011, 09:49pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
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 02:59am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1