Easier for us to see...

[SamIAm]

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. The call was correct from where I sit, but what I understand from the "you have to see the contact" crowd, it shouldn't have been called. The contact, if it happend, was on the opposite side of the players head from where the L was standing. L does not know contact occurred.

Just watch the video.

Cosby Sweaters Grade School Basketball Game Sucker Punch!

[BLydic]

I'm in the "punch of any kind whether there's contact or not should get the same reaction from the official" crowd

[Adam]

He could easily see the punching action, no need to see contact here. I noticed he incorrectly calls a T, but that's a minor issue here.

Edit: Scratch that, a Flagrant T is the proper call for fighting regardless of live ball/dead ball or contact/no contact.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Edit: Scratch that, a Flagrant T is the proper call for fighting regardless of live ball/dead ball or contact/no contact.

Is that your final answer?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Is that your final answer?

Yep. Fighting is 10-3-8, and it doesn't specify anything about contact or live ball. Section 10-3 is labeled "player technical."

[Welpe]

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

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yep. Fighting is 10-3-8, and it doesn't specify anything about contact or live ball. Section 10-3 is labeled "player technical."

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Welpe]

That's a big assumption to make. You do realize that the player should be assessed a flagrant personal foul for fighting even if he does not make contact in this situation, correct?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

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. The call was correct from where I sit, but what I understand from the "you have to see the contact" crowd, it shouldn't have been called. The contact, if it happend, was on the opposite side of the players head from where the L was standing. L does not know contact occurred.

Just watch the video.

Cosby Sweaters Grade School Basketball Game Sucker Punch!

Since contact doesn't need to be made on a situation like this, it doesn't matter if contact is seen or not. Green 34 is ejected for his actions.

Then he's fined $1,500 for commenting on the play using social media.

[grunewar]

What do you mean he didn't make contact? Didn't you see that kid go down and the pain he is obvioulsy in? Wow! Must have been solid contact. Soccer must be his springtime sport.

Dirty sucker punch. Uncalled for no matter how you look at it. Gone!

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by grunewar

What do you mean he didn't make contact? Didn't you see that kid go down and the pain he is obvioulsy in? Wow! Must have been solid contact. Soccer must be his springtime sport.

Dirty sucker punch. Uncalled for no matter how you look at it. Gone!

I don't see that anyone said their was no contact. I only see posts that say it was not necessary to see the contact....it would be a flagrant T for fighting in any case.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by SamIAm

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

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?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.