Easier for us to see...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Adam]

Agreed.