If the flagrant foul which starts the action is what provokes that which follows, why could it not be called a technical foul as well?

If i remember correctly, there's some ambiguity in the rules here.

So that means I'm right?:D

Yes, there is.

In one place, in very plain language, it says that fighting is a technical foul without mention of the status of the ball (live/dead).

Elsewhere, it says that live ball contact is a personal foul.


I'm of the opinion that the fighting rule, being the more special situation, should supersede the more general live ball/personal rule. But, not all agree.

If the whole incident is a fight, it begins with the start of the first blow. The ball is already dead when the contact occurs.

I agree with Camron. You can't, however, just retroactively make the ball dead prior to contact just to make it fit.

The Zombie Play: Both Dead And Alive At The Same Time ...
 

This reminds me of the controversial backcourt violation that we have discussed here, on the Forum, many times, where the offensive player, with team control, "causes" the ball to go into the backcourt because he is the first to touch the ball in the backcourt, by simply catching a ball in the air, and then landing, a ball that has been tapped back there by a defensive player.

I agree with all this except coach B is going to get 2 indirect. 1 for B8 leaving and fighting and 1 for B12 leaving but not fighting.

A personal foul can NEVER become a technical foul and a technical foul can NEVER become a personal foul. They are two mutually exclusive categories.

What can happen is that an unsporting act (by definition a noncontact technical foul) can be deemed fighting if it causes the opponent to retaliate by doing so, and thus becomes a flagrant technical foul.
However, it was already a technical foul. The penalty just now includes a disqualification. That is per the definition of fighting in rule 4.

We have been over this point before and while I acknowledge the truth in Camron's statement, I respectfully disagree with his conclusion.

4-18 tells us that fighting can occur during either a live or dead ball and makes no mention of what type of foul it is.

10-3-8 lists "be charged with fighting" under player technical without mention of the status of the ball.

4-19-4 states only that fighting is a flagrant act. It does not state whether it is a personal or technical foul. This passage also lists certain actions that are personal fouls and when actions are technical fouls.

4-19-1 states that live ball contact is a personal foul, as Camron wrote above.

The fact is that the Case Book elaborates further and he doesn't mention this.

In very plain language, and correctly so in my opinion, the Case Book states that two players fighting during a live ball are charged with a double flagrant personal foul. The citation is 10.4.5 Situation A.

I am of the opinion that 10-3-8 is a small oversight in the NFHS Rules Book and that the intent of the rules writers was for this passage to be taken in the context of a technical foul, meaning that the act was done during a dead ball or without contact as noted in 4-19-4. It should be clarified through an editorial change. Simply adding "during a dead ball" would be helpful, if not fully complete.

Found a 2nd Case Book play which states that fighting by two opponents during a live ball is a double flagrant personal foul. 8.6.3 Sit A.

Simultaneously ???
 

8.6.3 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.

They "simultaneously" punch each other.

I've always questioned what would happen if A1 landed the first punch, followed by B1 landing a retaliatory punch. If the official saw the first punch, wouldn't the contact itself (live ball contact, thus a personal foul) make the ball dead, so that the second punch would be a dead ball (technical foul) punch?

Acknowledged...and it is clear that the NFHS wants them administered that way. But there is still contradiction among the rules and cases. It just happens that more of the citations indicated that it is a personal foul.