Easier for us to see...
 

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!

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

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?

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

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

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. ;)

Is that your final answer? ;)

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!

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Where do you get that idea?

This statement is misleading, suggesting that fighting is always (at least) a double foul.

4-18-1 goes on to use the phrase ''regardless of whether contact is made."
I have heard it stated that a fight starts with either the beginning of the first punch or the act which provoked it. Either way, the ball is dead at this point, so the sequence afterward is irrelevant. I subscribe to this theory.

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.

They probably didn't see the punch.

Okay, I see your point. It takes two to make a fight. But if only one punches, and the other

a. runs away
b. takes it without a response
c. falls to the floor

only one is penalized.

But even in this case, can fighting be a personal foul? A single punch, perhaps.
Anything beyond that, the penalty encompasses the entire action, part of which happens after the ball is dead, making it a T. Yes?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Agreed.

You can also consider the person that "instigated" the fight as also part of the fight if they did not throw a single punch. In other words if the person says, "Your mom wears combat boots" and the opponent reacts and punches the person as a result, then you gets both of them. But that is not automatic at all or what the rule says.

And I am not under the impression that fighting is always a dead ball foul as it can take place during a live ball. That being said if that is the case I am sure this is in the definitions.

Peace

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.

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.

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.

The "immediate" reaction might be 10 seconds later, or more. Whistle has blown, ball is long since dead. No way this retaliation can be a personal foul.
So if you were gonna label the whole fight and call it a double anything, technical would fit a lot more often that personal.

But as we all continue to agree, in this case, technical or personal, it really doesn't matter.

I was the trail on this play.
 

I was trail on this play. The incident occurred early in the 1st period. Nothing had gone on between these two players prior the punch being thrown. Everyone on both teams was shocked (as you can hear from the video) and it was so out-of-the-blue that most people didn't even see it happen. I should know, I missed it myself! I was looking in my PCA and had nothing on it.

This is one of those instances where we must trust our partners and back them up 100% no matter what the circumstance. What the video doesn't show is the reaction from my partner after he makes the call. He actually lost control a bit and allowed his emotions to get the better of him. Having never worked with him before, and because he arrived late we hadn't had the opportunity to pre-game, to calm him down I went and asked him to go administer the T-Free throws and told him I would take care of the coach and score table for him. He went so far as to tell the player being ejected that "his season was over!!!" (Not our call of course, handled by the league.)

He later apologized for losing his cool, and for the "Season's over!" comment. Also said that he couldn't see if the contact was open or closed handed but judged it to be flagrant. I told him I had nothing on it but that if he was sure of what he saw it I would back him up.

The rest of the game went great though. Went into 4 Overtime Periods!!!!
No further incidents, excellent sportsmanship from all other participants.

In case anyone is wondering... Yes, the kid was ejected from our league.

When you said you were trail, I'm assuming you meant old trail/new lead.

Doesn't matter...an attempted/connected slap/punch is a flagrant T/foul. Also was your partner just emotional over the flagrant? I'm guessing it was the first time he's had to deal with something of this nature?

If green is inbounding under their own basket?
 

I believe trail is still trail when they are inbounding under their own basket.

As for partner's reaction (not shown in video), he is the second partner this year where we have had an ejection and rather than just make the call, follow procedure, and move on... he became quite angry at the "ejectee" and followed him to the bench almost as if he had to "sell" this call.

Don't know his experience other than he stated he has worked some of the same Adult Mens Rec ball that I have. Would assume he has called intentional, flagrant, indirect/direct Ts etc.. before, but can't say for sure.

I believe there was a steal thus making you the new lead. :p

That's interesting that you've had two partners who went haywire after calling a flagrant on a player. How did the coaches react to this? I'd venture a guess that they might be a bit irked.

Correct-o-mundo... New Lead.
 

Had to watch the video again... You ARE correct, steal happens before the punch and whistle. I had just became new lead. Fair enough. :D

In this game it was almost as if my partner was the ONLY person to have actually seen it. I like to think this is not something I could ever miss, PCA or not, but it was so quick neither coach saw it either.

Green #34's coach was still in shock and trying to understand what had happened that by the time he was eyeing my partner's response I had managed to get partner focused on something else (FTs).

Coach and I had a quick talk about how that is NOT what he teaches his players yadayada, and I could also tell he was sincere when he apologized to the other bench for what had happened. Quick speech from both coaches to their players RE: NO retaliation etc... and game went into 4 OTs with out a hitch.

In a separate incident with different partner, HS Boys back to back Ts on 1 player for running mouth and foul language at my partner. That game ended in an ejection (2 Ts) in which the player returned moments later and we stopped/canceled rest of game.

Coach allowed parents to take control of player in hallway and player decided to return anyway.
1 bad apple spoiled it for the rest.

My opinion? Call the total act a fight. Assess double personal flagrant fouls as per case book play 10.4.5SitA and quit over-thinking these kind of plays. You don't have to parse every single word in a rule to get direction you can use.

A connected slap punch is a flagrant technical foul? Wrong by rule.

A connected slap/punch during a live ball is a flagrant personal foul as per rule 4-19-1 and 4-19-4.

A connected slap punch during a dead ball is a flagrant technical foul as per rule 4-19-4 and 4-19-5(c).

An attempted slap punch without contact during a live or dead ball is a flagrant technical foul as per rule 4-19-4 and 4-19-5(b)

The proper call by rule in the video in the OP is a flagrant personal foul for fighting.

Exactly. You don't break it into parts. Let's say that I punch you and then you punch me -- regardless of the timing of the whistle, we aren't going to look at the order of the fouls in that situation. We consider it one incident -- one fight -- and penalize accordingly.

Don't kick yourself on this; you shouldn't see it. You can't watch the whole court.

I know that JR, the wording may of been a bit confusing. I was definitely saying an attempted slap/punch is a flagrant T while an connected one would be a flagrant personal foul.

I thought I heard him say that. Thanks for the post and welcome to the forum.

The internet is a pretty phenomenal thing.

I was kinda wondering about the wording. Didn't seem like you to miss one like that.