fight rule
 

A couple of years ago our group created a power point presentation on the fight rule. These two main components of the presentation seem to be in conflict with some rulings in our state.

1. You should never shoot f. throws at both ends of the court
2. Bench personnel entering the court to OBSERVE the fight goes in one bucket for tally purposes and the bench personnel that JOIN in the fight gets categorized in another bucket for tally purposes.

For example: A6 and B6 enter the court as a fight breaks out. A6 fights. B6 only observes. Team B would be awarded 2 f. throws because Team A had one more bench personnel fighting than they had fighting. But, Team A would be awarded 2. f. throws because Team B had more team members entering the court to obersve the fight than Team A had entering the court to observe fight. Overall, no f. throws would be shot becaue they offset each other.

Is this how you guys interpret the rule?

It matches my interpretation.

Bob,

look at this true/false test question:

A1, A2 and B1 begin to fight during a dead ball.
A6, B6 and B7 enter the court without fighting
no f. throws are shot

Is this true or false?

For the players who fight: 2 T's enforced on A, 1 T enforced on B.

for the players who enter but don't fight: 1 T enforced on each (all are ejected, and 1 foul added to the team total for A, and 2 for B, but in terms of Ts for offsetting, it's one apiece).

So B shoots 2 FTs

Bob,

For the players on the court - shouldn't Team A be accessed one more technical than Team B for having 2 players fighting to team B's 1 player fighting?

For bench - because the numbers are not corresponding for entering and not fighting would team B not be accessed a maximum of one technical foul?

Yes -- I think that's what I said (except the word is "assessed" ;) )

Good catch. So the number of Ts is now even and no FTs are shot.

Is it correct that the head coach gets one indirect technical for each player leaving the bench and participating in the fight and a maximum of one indirect technical for players leaving the bench but not participating in the fight?

Example: Players A6, A7, A8 and A9 all leave the bench. Players A6 and A7 participate in the fight. Players A8 and A9 observe. Three indirect technicals to A's head coach and ejection.

Correct.

Unfortunately, the NFHS needs to clarify this section of the rules.

Some areas handle it as your state and Bob interprets, but others will not offset the FTs due to fighters and non-fighters. They are totally separate categories in the rules book and some folks take that as not able to cancel out.

It would be wonderful if the NFHS would issue a clear case play on this.

I am confused now. A1 & A2 fight, as does B1 = 2 FT's for team B. A6 vs B6 & B7 = 1 T for each team and no FT's as they offset. Isn't the end result then still the 2 FT's for team B?

Correct

Since the numbers of team members leaving are uneven, it's one "T to be administered" against the team with the most. So, here, A will get 2 FTs. These offset against the 2 FTs for B in the first part.

Examples (no fight on the floor, A6 leaves but does not participate in all examples, all the B below leave but do not participate):

B6 leaves: 1 indirect against coach A, 1 indirect against coach B, no FTs (the numbers are even)

B6 and B7 leave: 1 indirect against coach A, 1 indirect against coach B, A shoots 2 FTs (the numbers are uneven)

B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, Trainer B, student manager B all leave; 1 indirect against coach A, 1 indirect against coach B, A shoots 2 FTs (the numbers are uneven -- by how much they are uneven doesn't matter here)

A7, A8, A9 leave (in addition to A6), B6, B7, B8, B9 leave: 1 indirect to each coach, no FTs (the numbers are even)

Got it, I was confusing the T's on the players with the indirects on the coach.

Does This Help ???
 

Here's a handout from our local board interpreter. It's few years old, but I think that the rules still apply:

FIGHTING - RULE & PENALTIES

Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting includes, but is not limited to acts such as:
- An attempt to strike, punch or kick an opponent with a fist, hands, arms, leg or feet regardless of whether contact is made.
- An attempt to instigate a fight by committing unsporting acts toward an opponent that causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting.

PLAYERS IN FIGHT:
If A1 and B1 fight during a live or dead ball, they are charged with flagrant technical fouls and disqualified from the game. There are no free throws since this is a double foul. Charge each team with one foul toward the bonus and use the alternating possession arrow to resume play unless there is player/team control.

BENCH PERSONNEL:
a. Leave Bench and Participate in Fight
If a player (or players) leaves the bench during a fight and participates in the fight that player (or players) is charged with a flagrant technical foul and is disqualified. The head coach is charged with an indirect foul for each player who participates in the fight and is disqualified. A team foul is charged for each disqualified player. If the same number of bench personnel leave the bench, there will no free throws.

b. Leave Bench and Do Not Participate in Fight
If a player (or players) leaves the bench during a fight or when a fight may break out and do not fight, they are charged with a flagrant technical foul and disqualified. The head coach is charged with ONE indirect foul regardless of the number of offenders. A team foul is charged for each disqualified player.

SITUATIONS

Play #1 - Bench personnel A1, A2 and B1, B2 leave the bench during a fight and only B2 gets into the fight.
Ruling #1 -
-A1, A2, B1, B2 are charged with flagrant technical fouls and disqualified.
-Team A head coach is charged with one indirect technical foul for A1 and A2 leaving the bench.
-Team B head coach is charged with two indirect technical fouls - one for B1 and B2 leaving the bench and one for B2 fighting.
-Team B and Team A are assessed two team fouls each.
-No free throws
-Resume play with throw-in via alternating possession arrow if no player/team control.


Play #2 – A1,A2, A3 and B1,B2,B3 leave the bench and participate in the fight.
Ruling #2 –
-A1,A2, A3,B1,B2,B3 are charged with a flagrant technical foul and disqualified.
-Team A and Team B head coaches are charged with three indirect technical fouls and disqualified and must leave playing court.
-No free throws are awarded.
-Team A and Team B are each assessed three team fouls
-Resume play via throw-in by team with alternating possession arrow if no player/team control.

Reminders

For Players - Any player(s) who leaves the bench, no matter if they fight or not, are ejected to the bench area, not the locker room. This is a flagrant technical foul on the player(s) and a team foul(s) towards the team total. Example – 3 players leave bench and fight/do not fight. Ruling – 3 player ejections and 3 team fouls.

For Coach – if no fighting by bench personnel; there is only 1 indirect technical foul assessed to coach regardless now many players leave bench and do not fight. Example – 3 players leave bench but do not fight. Ruling – 3 players ejected, 3 team fouls, 1 indirect technical to coach. There is no team foul associated with the indirect technical foul.

For Coach – if fighting by bench personnel; there is an indirect technical foul assessed to coach for EACH player that fights. Example – 3 players leave bench and fight. Ruling – 3 players ejected, 3 team fouls, 3 indirect technical fouls to coach resulting in coach ejection. There are no team fouls associated with the indirect technical foul.

Coaches –
- if head coach leaves bench to help stop the fight, you beckoned head coach;
- if assistant coach(es) leaves the bench, they are charged with a flagrant technical foul and disqualified.
- the head coach is assessed an indirect technical foul for every flagrant foul assessed to an assistant coach(es).

We were always taught in my previous area that each set are treated completely different.

The players on court fighting is one set.
Players leaving and not fighting is another.
Players leaving and fighting is another.

This way we track 3 sets of T's and administer each accordingly as in which ever team has an uneven number for each set shoots.

Can you then have FT's at each end? I like the idea of "you should never shoot FT's at both ends of the court" I'm an accountant and that way I get to add up the FT's awarded, cancel out and only administer the remainder. Then draw a double line under my totals and call it balanced! :)

A confusing issue is that all T's (concerning bench personnel) are not necessarily awarded FT's. (penalties 10-8) By that nature, I don't think it is as easy as adding up the T's or players and then calculating FT's.

I completely agree that each "set" mentioned above are treated differently. But I don't think the rule is written that simply. There is still the application of indirects appiled to HC. I am not sure that "whichever team has an uneven number . . . shoots" is correct.

So then which would you shoot first? Who gets the ball?

One more thought
 

BillyMac's handout explains things pretty well. But . . . the idea of "AP unless there is Team Control" as the answer to whom gets possession is worded poorly. As I undertand it, it is always POI. If there is no definitive POI, AP is the correct choice. As I've heard it said many times before, AP is almost never the right answer.

we would shoot the team that wasnt going to be getting the ball first. and the team that got the ball would be whichever team had fewer total T's.

I like the no shooting on both sides much better.

separate or not?
 

Another debated topic is that GHSA advises officials to not separate the players - "don't grab the players" once the melee starts. Does your association or State have different advise on this topic?

I have never been told to separate players. Ever.

Once they engage, just take numbers.

Same here. If you are close enough to get in between before anything starts then try and keep them apart. But if they are going at it just sit back and record what happens. If you are close to the table and have the ability to quickly get a pen and paper that could help a lot (but it should be done extremely quick).

Any coaches and personnel trying to break up the fight are considered beckoned on the court. Also I would not if you or your partner can then remind benches to keep their personnel on the bench. usually at the varsity level (for a majority of schools I have worked) there will be one or two coaches that initially make sure the bench stays where they belong.

This is a great rule of thumb along with Ronny's "Never shoot FT on both ends of the court"

I agree that NFHS really needs to address this with better casebook plays. GHSA has thrown a few things our way that has caused some confusion among officials.

Case 10.4.5A (c) and10.4.5E make it clear to me.

In both cases, FTs for players leaving the bench and FTs for players leaving and fighting offset resulting in no FTs overall.

Indirect TF for Coach
 

I thought I had this figured out but now . . . not sure.

A6 enters the court but does not fight = one indirect to HC
A6 enters the court and participates in fight = one indirect to HC
A6 and A7 enter the court and do not fight = one indirect to HC
A6 and A7 enter the court, A6 fights and A7 does not = two indirect to HC
A6 and B6 enter the court, A6 fights and B6 does not = one indirect to each HC

Are the above statements correct?

looks right to me

Let's mix it up a bit.

Fight begins with a live ball Flagrant personal foul by B1.

After he gets up, A1 punches B1. A2 then shoves B1. A6, A7, and B8 come off the bench and fight. B12 comes off the bench.but doesn't fight.

My try
 

All ejected.

2 FT's awarded to Team B

Coach A gets 2 Indirects
Coach B gets 1 Indirect

Team B gets ball at the division line.

Add 4 fouls to team A's count and 3 fouls to team B's count.

It depends on whether you view this as one incident or two (and maybe on whether you think a "personal" for fighting can offset a "technical" for fighting.)

The bench stuff all offsets.

So, if you view it as one event, then it's two flagrants on A and one on B, so B shoots 2 FTs and gets the ball.

If you view it as separate events, the A shoots 2 FTs, B shoots 4 FTs and gets the ball.

The flagrant personal foul by B1 cannot be offset by any technical foul. There is no rule provision which would allow for that.

Looking at it again
 

I believe coach B would also get 2 indirects now that I am looking at it again. One for players leaving the bench and one for B8 participating in the fight.

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.