Fighting is a flagrant T - make sure you're okay with ejecting the player over this.

Not necessarily. The act of fighting can occur whether there's contact or not. If a player takes a swing at an opponent and misses, he's fighting and it's a T. If he connects, it's a flagrant personal foul, per the case book.

That's one that Jurassic Referee pounded on me about until I saw the light! ;)

Also, if you consider it fighting and throw the T, you have to toss him as well. All fighting is flagrant. Call the intentional foul, it's the same result.

Agree with Tony completely.You could also end up with a major problem if you just called it a normal T,and not a flagrant T,in this case-without a missed swing being involved.Later on in the game,the same player might yap at you or something,and now you haveta lay another T on him.Bang-2nd T-and he's history.The player might also now be looking at some kind of suspension to go along with his ejection,so you might be required to fill out some kinda game report.You do the report,and maybe the player's coach or someone picks out the fact that the first T shoulda actually been a personal foul of some type-by rule.Now everything that you've done goes down the porcelain whirlpool.Not worth it.Do it by the book in the first place and you don't have to worry about any additional problems later.

As Tony said,an intentional foul accomplishes the same purpose as a T in this case anyway. JMO.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 25th, 2003 at 03:50 AM]

Like I said guys, you are completely right. That being said, sometimes in the summer, I run a little tighter ship... especially when a dad is coaching and the sportsmanship is poor. A "T" sends a little stronger message than an intentional because another one is ejection so it can nip it in the bud a little better.

Z

Agree with you completely too,Z. Rec leagues are a whole different beast.Sometimes you spend more time trying just to get the kids to play a little bit,than actually refereeing them.

Tony,
Your posting the definition of an unsporting foul, made me think about a casebook play I read a while back about a player who is bleeding and intentionally wipes the blood on a player from the opposing team so that this opponent will have to leave the game. Obviously, this action involves contact, but the ruling was that it was an unsporting foul and thus a T. Go figure!

Right -- because it wasn't contact that interfereed with / hindered (I forget the exact wording) the opponent's ability to perform normal offensive or defensive maneuvers -- and that's the definition of a "contact" foul.