Fight rule

[ref83]

Player A1 fights players B1 and B2. Result, A1, B1 and B2 are assessed flagrant technicals. Thus, team A will shoot 2 free-throws. At approximately the same time the fight breaks out on the court as described above, bench personal A6 and A7 enter court but do not participate. Bench personal B6 enters court but does not participate. Result, A6, A7, and B6 are assessed flagrant technicals and coaches are each assessed one indirect technical. Thus, team B will shoot 2 free-throws. Is this situation treated as a double technical? Do the free-throws cancel each other out or would team A shoot 2 and team B shoot 2? What is the rule or case book play that covers this situation?

[JugglingReferee]

NevadaRef had a great explanation some time ago.

From what I recall from that post, free throws only cancel with free throws due to the same nature of the penalty.

So the penalties from the on-court players only cancel with the penalties from the on-court players, and the penalties from the off-court players only cancel with the penalties from the off-court players. So yes, I believe that A shoots 2, then B shoots, then B get the throw-in.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

NevadaRef had a great explanation some time ago.

From what I recall from that post, free throws only cancel with free throws due to the same nature of the penalty.

So the penalties from the on-court players only cancel with the penalties from the on-court players, and the penalties from the off-court players only cancel with the penalties from the off-court players. So yes, I believe that A shoots 2, then B shoots, then B get the throw-in.

I very much agree

-Josh

[BktBallRef]

I nhave 6 falgrant technical fouls, three on each team and no FTs.

The fighting case plays are found in 10.4.5.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

NevadaRef had a great explanation some time ago.

From what I recall from that post, free throws only cancel with free throws due to the same nature of the penalty.

So the penalties from the on-court players only cancel with the penalties from the on-court players, and the penalties from the off-court players only cancel with the penalties from the off-court players. So yes, I believe that A shoots 2, then B shoots, then B get the throw-in.

Agree with this as well however, unless there is an old case play/interp out considers both the uneven flagrants out there, I can't see how you would give Team B the ball except as either the result of AP or POI.

[Rob1968]

Case Book 10.4.5 A deals with a Fight situation in which the T's are equal in number, and therefore off-setting. The ball will be put into play at the POI.

10.4.5 B deals with a situation in which the T's on the players involved are off-setting, but a T is charged to A's coach, and B will shoot 2 and get the ball at the division line opposite the table.

10.4.5 C, E and F deal with off-setting numbers of T's, and POI for the resumption of play.

10.4.5 D indicates how to cancel the off-setting T's, with a remaining T causing 2 shots, and a division-line throw-in opposite the table, for the T that has no corresponding simultaneous T by an opponent.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

NevadaRef had a great explanation some time ago.

From what I recall from that post, free throws only cancel with free throws due to the same nature of the penalty.

that is (or was) his opinion. I disagree, and would offset "across" categories. So, I'd have no FTs and POI in the OP.

[JugglingReferee]

Case (e) implies that simultaneous refers to the substitutes coming off of bench.

So then this demands that simultaneous in (d) could only apply to a corresponding substitute player.

It can then be inferred that a fight on-court and substitutes leaving their bench are not deemed to be simultaneous.

So if my first statement is correct, then Nevada was correct.

Just my 2 cents.

[stosh]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Case (e) implies that simultaneous refers to the substitutes coming off of bench.

So then this demands that simultaneous in (d) could only apply to a corresponding substitute player.

It can then be inferred that a fight on-court and substitutes leaving their bench are not deemed to be simultaneous.

So if my first statement is correct, then Nevada was correct.

Just my 2 cents.

I would still consider this as simultaneous since it all happened during the same "Dead Ball" period.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by stosh

I would still consider this as simultaneous since it all happened during the same "Dead Ball" period.

But one (and possibly two) of the on-court players was fighting during a live-ball.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

But one (and possibly two) of the on-court players was fighting during a live-ball.

And you don't think this is when the subs came running onto the floor?

By definition, simultaneous fouls occur at approximately the same time, not the exact same time. Six flagrant fouls, all occurring within a few seconds of each other. Sure sounds like approximately the same time to me.

The rules say nothing about player techs being penalized separately from substitute technicals. It makes no difference whatsoever. Sure sounds like simultaneous fouls to me.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

And you don't think this is when the subs came running onto the floor?

By definition, simultaneous fouls occur at approximately the same time, not the exact same time. Six flagrant fouls, all occurring within a few seconds of each other. Sure sounds like approximately the same time to me.

The rules say nothing about player techs being penalized separately from substitute technicals. It makes no difference whatsoever. Sure sounds like simultaneous fouls to me.

I totally agree that simultaneous can be used by logic. I also think a valid opinion is that logic can also say that these are not simultaneous. "Approximately the same time" could mean different thing to different people.

Rather, I would be interested to know your thoughts on the language used and the conclusion in my post #8.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I totally agree that simultaneous can be used by logic. I also think a valid opinion is that logic can also say that these are not simultaneous. "Approximately the same time" could mean different thing to different people.

Rather, I would be interested to know your thoughts on the language used and the conclusion in my post #8.

Forgive me, but my thoughts are that you are completely wrong. It makes no difference whether we're dealing with players or subs. It makes no difference whether some participants are at this end of the floor and others are at the far end. We're talking about timing, not player designation nor location.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Forgive me, but my thoughts are that you are completely wrong. It makes no difference whether we're dealing with players or subs. It makes no difference whether some participants are at this end of the floor and others are at the far end. We're talking about timing, not player designation nor location.

I can accept that you think I'm wrong, although you still didn't tell me how my conclusion in post 8 was incorrect.

[refiator]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Case (e) implies that simultaneous refers to the substitutes coming off of bench.

So then this demands that simultaneous in (d) could only apply to a corresponding substitute player.

It can then be inferred that a fight on-court and substitutes leaving their bench are not deemed to be simultaneous.

So if my first statement is correct, then Nevada was correct.

Just my 2 cents.

This is correct. This is not considered simultaneous. Free throws are warranted.