Easier for us to see...

[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

[just another ref]

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Fighting takes at least 2...

Not true.

4-18

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 by using a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.

A single player taking a swing at another and missing is enough for a flagrant personal / technical foul for fighting.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Where do you get that idea?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[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.

[reffish]

I like the reaction by the camera, "What?" when the official is escorting the player to the bench for ejection.