This is not unusual. I had a partner tell me recently that two kids got into a "scrum" during a live ball situation and he had to "T 'em both up". I didn't even bother trying to explain that it couldn't have been a technical because they were live ball contact fouls. That isn't the first time I've had other officials not know the difference between personal/technical.

Live Ball Fighting ???
 

I agree with you, but I've heard from several usually reliable sources that fouls for fighting are always technical, even if they occur during a live ball. I can't find anything from the NFHS, rule, or casebook play, that proves that, but, rather, from IAABO interpreters, and from sources on this Forum.

Oddly, this thread starter, from a very handsome, and intelligent, Forum member, last month, only generated responses from two esteemed Forum members:

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...-fighting.html

Discussion?

Coach Norman Dale?

Fouls for fighting are always Flagrant...they are not always Technical...not sure why people are giving you that incorrect information, but the definitions in Rule 4 are pretty clear.

Definitely not us! The coach does.

Don't care. Not our decision.

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Yet I'd say - no sense inventing rules to satisfy your personal desire to coach this team yourself. This is NOT OUR CALL. Our call is to ask him if any of his players are able to play - if he says no, it's no. (If he says yes, and simply refuses to give you a sub in a timely manner - you can give a T. And sure, if he stupidly continues to insist that he has eligible players but refuses to sub, you can pack up and leave ... but you'd better give him the opportunity to tell you no players are able to play.)

I want to make sure I understand the rules correctly. This "scrum" could be called a double (common) foul, but depending on the amount of contact, could be a double (intentional) foul or double (flagrant) for fighting?

And any combination of the above.

So is the statement in Rule 10-3-8 that says fighting is a T. It doesn't say be charged with fighting during a dead ball. Thus the confusion. It is the book that has created the conflict.

It's not that confusing...if they are charged with a T, then the fighting took place during a dead ball.

If there is a fight, it doesn't matter if there is contact or not,

4-18-1: ..........regardless of whether contact is made.


so this, to me, means it is always a technical.

I think of a flagrant personal involving contact which still bears some semblance to a basketball play, even though sometimes thinly veiled. Best examples being the elbow to the head (he was just clearing himself some space) or planting the shooter into the wall on a layup. (he was going for the block)

When a player obviously goes after another player with intent to do bodily harm, it is no longer basketball, so go with the maximum penalty. Kick him out and put the ball into the hands of the best free throw shooter.

If you want to twist words that are not there, fine. But that isn't what the rules actually say. 10-3-8 says that it is a player T to be charged with fighting without qualification.

Even a swing and miss during a live ball is still a T. So, saying that if it is a T, it took place during a dead ball is also inaccurate.

And why should the penalty for swing and miss be more than the swing and hit? (who shoots the FTs changes. For a T anyone shoots. For the personal only the offended player can shoot).

What killed the ball?

Who knows? A travel...a timeout being granted...a kicked ball...lots of possibilities there.

Not sure how I am wisting words that aren't there...seems more like you are choosing to ignore the definition of a Technical foul from rule 4...kind of seems like you have to read 10-3-8 in light of that definition, doesn't it?