Went to Hershey, Pennsylvania today to see a couple of state title games. In the AA Boys game (Sto-Rox vs Trinity) there was a bench-clearing brawl. There was some physicality just beginning, then a loose ball in front of the Trinity bench early in the fourth quarter. About six guys piled up and there was some shoving when they unpiled. The call was a held ball, Sto-Rox possession. They had to inbound right in front of the Trinity bench. A Trinity sub must have said something or did something from his seat on the bench to the player about to inbound, and the Sto-Rox player turned, karate kicked him, got in three or four punches, and the whole place erupted. Both benches cleared and there were maybe three or four separate scraps going on all over the floor.

During the time they tried to sort things out, I was supposing the game was going to end 4 on 5. I thought every bench player would be tossed along with the "karate" kid. After a big group of people consulted (PIAA director, officials, coaches, others) they ended up only tossing karate man, with some stern warnings, and a pair of Trinity FTs for the flagrant T. A couple of minutes later Sto-Rox star big man got tossed for a punch-like contact and that was it for the physicality. Sto-Rox got blown out with their only two big men ejected.

Questions: What is the penalty for leaving the bench during a fight? Does the head coach get an indirect T for each player that leaves the floor? If you were officiating this game, would it have tossed more players? Any comments would be appreciated.

Oh, and THIS is what I'd call poor sportsmanship.

By rule, each sub or bench personnel leaving the banch is ejected. The head coach receives one indirect T, no matter how many leave the bench. However, for each sub or bench personnel that leaves the bench and participates in a fight, the head coach receives an additional indirect T. So, if three subs left the bench and fouth, the head coach is gone.

I would have done what the state officials in charge told me to do.

Ya think.
 

Any player or coach that comes onto the court is called with a Flagrant Foul and ejected from the game.

If the coach did not leave the bench and was beckoned by the officials, that coach gets in indirect for every player that got involved (or bench personnel) that got involved in the fight. So bascially if 3 or more players left the bench, the coach is ejected with 3 indirects against him (at least).

Honestly, if this happen, the coach was beckoned in my opinion. I think it only makes sense to do it that way, as long as that coach is helping and not hurting the situation. I guess the second part of that, depends on what happens after that. If the players had to go a long way to get off the bench. If the incident happen right in front of the bench, then I would have to use judgement as to who got involved directly. I guess it comes down to what I saw. I would try to eject as many that really were involved. But officials are outnumbered and it is not like football where you have a pad to write down numbers. I hope this never happens in one of my games. http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/box.gif

Peace

One coach says the other team is "a bunch of street kids who play dirty and cheap shot".
The other coach says that the other team is "a bunch of white thugs".

Both coaches should be made to disappear from high school sports! Sad,sad day!

http://www.postgazette.com/highschoo...srox0323p4.asp

WOW!!!
 

Can you say their was bad blood between the teams.http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/argue.gif

Good Lord.

Peace

WOW, I agree with BktBallRef tht "I would have done what the state officials in charge told me to do.", but I think I would have had to voice my opinion (rather loudly) about the bench personnel leaving the bench.

If the state tournament officials are in the discussion, and pulling rank (although they had better know the rules it they are going to do that) you certainly can not hold the game officials responsible for any missapplications as far as the fight goes.

JRut said it pretty clearly "I hope this never happens in one of my games." ~ ME TOO!

Blackhawk

Follow-up story:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/trib.../s_125181_html

How come the two stories have different official's names??

I would follow the NFHS rulebook and tell the state officials to take a hike. This is the reason the rules are there. If they don't want to enforce these rules then they shouldn't put me on the game.
The NFHS rulesbook serves as a contract between both teams that are participating as to how the game will be played. Each team enters the game with the expectation that what is written there will be followed and the contract will be upheld. It is our duty as officials to make sure that this happens. Without them we have no order.

If it came down to it I would walk off the court before failing to follow the rules.

I've read several articles now, and I've seen a few quotes from state officials talking about how they wouldn't have had any players left to finish the game if they ejected everyone who came off the bench. That confuses me; both players had five in the game. Toss the fighter and all the bench personnel, and finish the game 4 v 5. The PIAA blows a lot of smoke about the importance of sportsmanship, then when they have their best chance to drive home the point, they choose to pass.

Good Point. I agree.

Sure you would. :rolleyes:

Another question
 

If all players from both teams participated (bench and on-court players)in the fight, and neither team has any players left after ejections, what happens? Go with the score at the time? Double forfeit?

Comment 1: It seems typical to me that the PIAA would not enforce the NFHS rules. We get some weird rules interpretations handed down to us from Harrisburg from time to time.

Comment 2: That ruling just made my job harder next year. If a game with a fight like that ever takes place, you know the coaches are going to point back to this game where the rules were not followed. PIAA has just undermined some of the authority of the officials on the court.

Comment 3: Shame on PIAA for not enforcing the rules. I am sure the ruling came from the bigwigs on the side of the court and not from the men on the floor.

It says right in the follow up article that the decision to eject only the one player was from the people in charge, not the officials.

Since those people are my boss during the state tourney I would tend to do what they requested. (Don't get that confused with moral dilemas)

[Edited by w_sohl on Mar 26th, 2003 at 01:10 PM]

I understand both the rules side of it, but especially the desire to be able to finish a championship game. Had they ejected everyone who left the bench, you are down to 4 on 5. Had they gone further, they could also have ejected all people in the fight, as fighting is itself a flagrant requiring ejection. It sounds like all players could have been gone, and the game could have been declared over at that point, with the score standing as it was at that point.

The rules driven result is not where you want to be in a state final. It may work well in the regular season, but you would not want your championship game ended at the 6 minute mark of the first quarter, or by forcing a team to play 4 v 5 for more than 3/4s of a state championship game. Regular season - bounce em all and call it a night.

I think it is important that the follow up action also occur, and if there is any film of the incident, I hope it is examined closely to get the facts right before handing out judgment.

The game was televised live statewide. They replayed the game later that day. They edited out the fight. But officials have said that they'd review the tape and assess appropriate penalties.

Probably nothing further will happen until May 21, the date of the next PIAA meeting.

I haven't seen the tape so I'm only going by what was said on here and the article posted. With that being said;

I don't think the high school league was right. Rules are there for a reason and they should be enforced evenly, fairly and at all times of the season. Players and coaches are supposed to play to win but still stay within the rules. When a fight happens players are given the ultimate penalty in a game, disqualification. What kind of message is this sending that the high school league would break (not bend, break) there own rules for the sake of crowning a champion?

I play to win as much as anyone. But rules are in place to ensure a fair outcome and also to deter similar behavior from happening again. If one team had more kids involved in the fight than the other team, how fair is it to them that their rivals get to continue playing? They are now being punished for staying out of the fight.

This action by the league simply tells kids it's okay to break rules if it's a really important game. It's during situations like this that the high school league needs to take a stand, have some integrity and enforce the rules the way they were written.

I will never understand..........
 

why everyone tries to make this a major issue because a State decides to make a judgement. This is the State Finals game. Not the Thanksgiving Tournament. The State had money invested and time invested to have this game. And people think it should have been scrapped all because the NF made a rule. It is not like they cannot punish the kids in other ways. They can ban them from other sports or require some kind suspension (at least a school board could) for representing the school in other ways. Just because they did not play the rest of the game, does not mean punishment will not be handed out or enforced. But I am sure the paper will not cover that aspect of the story.

Peace

You're right, since a lot of money was involved that makes it ok.

Everything does not have the same value.
 

Did not say it made it OK. But if you have a special event, you do not handle it as if it was any other event.

I do not know about you, if I pay $2000 for a suit or outfit, I am going to treat that suit differently than the one I buy for $150. But that is just me.

Peace

jrut
That was my point exactly. This is not a regular season game. You don't want to end the season this way, and the state clearly plans to address this thing. Hopefuly they choose an appropriate punishment that allows future players for both teams to continue playing but hammers them hard enough to prevent future incidents. I could even see them having a one year post-season ban - it would allow the kids to play the season but let them know that you want to play in the tournament, you follow the rules.

You do not want to send the message that this type of thing is tolerated in big games, but you also don't want to end your state championship in the first quarter. The state seems to have found a way to handle both aspects of this issue, and good on them.

One point I would quibble with is the one about the paper not covering it once punishment is handed out. I know the Post HS Sports section would have an article following up when the decision is made, and I imagine the same will be true in PA. Depending on the severity of the punishment, the article may or may not draw much attention. Shut a major progam down and it could be front page of the sports section - slap them on the wrist and it falls to page 12.

Then why ...
 

throw anybody out - if it is that important of a game? Just overlook the fights, call a common foul and go on.

I disagree with our State directors who made the decision. As I said earlier, I think my job could be harder next year because of the precedence set at that championship game. It upsets me to think they did not have the courage to follow the rules. As a referee in Pennsylvania, I almost feel betrayed. Nothing violates the integrity of the game more than ignoring blatantly the rules.

Re: Then why ...
 

If your contention is that there is no punishment, then I do not see where you are coming from. Because punishment can come in all kinds of forms and directions. So basically according to you, we just end the game, have no winner but by forfeit and send everyone home with a horrible outcome.

I went to a military school for one year, if we did things that violated rules outside of the school grounds, the punishment was much more sever than anything they State would do if we violated our own rules. Let us not make it seem like the only ones that can punish someone is the officials and the state.

Just my opinion.

Peace

JRutledge,
While I respectfully disagree with you I do see your point. I'm just curious how it's possible to punish these kids involved after the game is over without unfairly punishing others. One suggestion that was made was that they should be suspened from other sports. But what if my only sport is baseball and 4 of the basketball players invovled in the fight are also starters on the baseball team. If they are suspened from any baseball games now I am being punished even though I wasn't on the team that got in the fight. Other than suspending them from other sports, what else can the high school league do to them? That is why I feel the punishment needs to be taken care of at the time it happens. To me, it's the only way to punish the team inovled without harming those who weren't.

Re: Then why ...
 

So you would prefer that they end the championship game right there? Everyone seems to think that this would be continued 4 v 5, but all fighters go, so all players would be out at that time and the game would be over. And you have just decided your state championship with only two minutes of the game having been played (this is when the fight occurred - 6 minute mark of 1st quarter).

I am certain the state will address this before next season, and hopefully they will make it clear whether or not they consider this a precedent for games from here forward. And if you have a concern about this being a precedent, you and your association should contact the state HS association and let them know your concern and what you would like them to do to address it before the next season. You speak as though no punishment was being handed out - that is not at all clear. I think that some pretty smart people said we don't want to end on this note (the brawl is bad enough), lets finish the game if we can and deal with repercussions later.

I say that you should wait to judge this until after final penalties are handed down. It may well be that the penalties here will exceed those of merely ending a game early, sending a clear message that this type of conduct will not be tolerated.

Just my opinion
 

Just throwing out one player is not fair. Yes, they continued the basketball game and completed it and the team that lost was at a disadvantage because their star player was the only one tossed. Continuing the basketball game proved nothing. It crowned a champion - deserving or not is a matter of opinion.

My personal opinion would be that neither of the schools deserve the championship because of the way they acted. Yes, discipline may be handed out later to the schools, but certainly the seniors benefited from the decision and will pay no penalty. Perhaps the coaches deserve some chastisement also. We will have to wait and see how this turns out.

To me, the most forceful message would have been to continue 5-4 or stop the game depending on what on court players did during the fight. But then again, I'm just a ref, not a director.

If I were the Athletic Director (or Principal) of one of the schools, and I was in attendance (as I'm sure they were), I would have pulled my kids out of the game. No way as a leader of my school or athletic program would I allow kids that participate in a bench-clearing fight to continue representing my school in the game.

Of course, that's just me. Damn ethics keep getting in the way...

Re: Just my opinion
 

You say one team was unfairly penalized because their star was thrown out while nobody else was. So why 5v4? You are now hurting the very team you say got unfairly penalized by handing out an even harsher penalty than the state gave out. You toss their star and every reserve, and make them play against the other team's starters for 30 minutes while down a man. That result is pretty predictable. At least the state's decision allowed it to be a reasonable contest.

Stopping the game was the only other reasonable option. All fighters get ejected, if you are following letter of the law, which you advocate. However, you seem to lean toward continuing the game, but under the most bizarre of circumstances that you would have a harder time justifying than the state's decision to continue with one ejection. And you force a team to play 4 on 5 - if you would do that, then simply end the game.

Re: Re: Just my opinion
 

I advocate the 4 on 5 situation because that is what the rules state should happen. I must admit I was not there and did not see the game on TV. We are assuming that no players on the court participated and that all bench personnel from both teams participated. After all was said and done, it could have been a 3 on 3, 5 on 5 with a sub or 0 on 0. The only thing we do know is that the NFHS rules were not followed. I am only stating that when rules are disregarded, the integrity of the game is compromised in my eyes. It was a bad situation, with no good options for the refs to call. I just happen to think the option that was dictated to the refs was not a good option. If the final result of ejections ended with a 5 on 4, I would prefer continuing the game. Less than that, I think I would prefer ending the game.

Which planet?
 

Ya'll who think this was handled the right way are, how shall I say it?

Yes, if everybody was involved in the fracas, they are all out of the game, and the game is over. Tough noogie. The fans go home truly disgruntled and the full impact of the disgrace falls on the two teams. Maybe it has a chilling effect on freely execising lack of self-restraint.

How shall I say it!
 

Look, any school association can do whatever they want to. If they wanted the kids that were in the fight to participate in the rest of the game, that was their decision. The NF is there to bring some uniformity to the rules, but it does not mean all rules have to be strictly followed. State associations come up with individual rules all the time. And in our state they are considering banning headbands all together over some gang situations. I am sure if this goes through, they will not wait for the NF to change it's rules. Most states are members of the NF, but it does not mean they do not create or have their own set of rules that apply to a specific state for specific situations. They might suspend many of the players that were involved from participating next year games. We just do not know right now. The officials did the right thing and let the State Administrators handle the situation.

Peace

I don't think anyone here is blaming the officials. They did what they were told to do. We all know that high school leagues have the authority to modify the NF rules. My problem is that coaches, no matter what level, say that there biggest gripe with officials isn't about what is called but rather the consistency with which it is called. I think this should be extended to the high school league as well. In my opinion the rules shouldn't change because it's 'a big game.'

A real life lesson was taught here.
 

Well, life is not fair. Life is not always consistent. Life does not always have to make sense. The state officials wanted to finish the game. They figured out a way to finish the game. If they had to change some rules or modify something to finish the game, so be it.

Rules are changed all the time in real life to accomplish goals or to solve problems. Whether it be the legal system, our voting rules/rights or admission standards, rules are always changed and modified. And yes, the kids will learn that you modify situations for certain event. I am sure the kids realize when they go to church they act one way, and when they go to school they act another way, then when they are with their friends they behave in another manner. Let us not make everything such a big deal. This was done so that everyone could see. I am sure the team that won the State Title will always be remembered as the "kids that were in that fight." It will take away that from their accomplishment the rest of their lives. I bet no one will ever talk about the game, they will only talk about the fight or the events that happen. Funny, we have not once talked about the great plays or the great comeback or dominate performance that this team had or even the double whistle that should not have been called (hypothetically speaking). I would assume the same will go about the same with the people that were there or saw it on TV. Punishment enough from my point of view. But that is my opinion.

Peace

I have read all the posts here to hopefully not say what has already been said.

Here in Australia we try to teach our officials to avoid situations that have a propensity for trouble. Giving the ball to an opposition player right in front of the other teams's bench is one of these. The officials have think beyond the rule book and have a feel for the game.

As far as tossing only 1 player I think this is were you guys have a problem. From reading this board I know in some regions coaches and administrators seem to have far too much input into referee appointments and some referees then no doubt set about protecting your jobs to a degree.

The answer here it seems to me was toss at least 1 player from the other side and let the game go on. This then shows an even handedness and neither team can complain that they were disadvantaged.

I agree this is not strictly by the rules but nothing would have been served by tossing all the bench. The game would then have gone in the toilet.

You could have even made it 2 or 3 from each side so the players would get the message that it was a really stupid thing to do.

end result
 

Re: end result
 

"What the probation does entail is periodic written reports from each school to its district committee to ensure that it has a sportsmanship policy in place and that the policy is being adhered to by its students. If either the district committee or the PIAA deems that either school has violated that policy, it could lose championship rights."

It seems ironic that there are sportsmanship rules (against fighting) in place that are not being enforced by the PIAA, but the PIAA wants these schools to have policies that ARE enforced.

What a mess.

Of course I wasn't there, and of course I can see both sides of the argument, but for sure the PA authorities could hold their heads up higher & not avert anyone's eyes if they would simply have followed the letter of the fighting rules & let the chips fall where they might.



After reading this I'm left feeling that if I was responsible for Wesner that Geiger kid would have left under police custody. There's a term for what he did: felony assault.

PA Coach -- How badly was the Wesner kid hurt? It sounded as though he could have been pretty badly damaged, but they don't say much about it. It makes no difference to the officiating situation, I'm just wondering.