Quote:
If you also look at the definition of fighting, it doesn't refer to contact at all....it is the attempt to strike that is considered the fight. So, the infraction has already occurred before the contact. Basically, my point is that BillyMac is not necessarily getting incorrect information from someone....the book can easily lead to the conclusion that fighting is a T at any time. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Au Contraire, Mon Frère ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Let's Say That We're Shooting Free Throws ...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
4-19 ART. 4
A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable *conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive *conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act. A flagrant technical is dead ball contact. Fighting is a flagrant act...so if the fight occurs during a dead ball, it is a flagrant T. If the fight occurs during a live ball, it is a flagrant personal. |
Quote:
Oooh, trivia alert: name the one non-contact foul that can be a personal foul. :) |
Playing with 4
I had a similar sitch last month, but for different reasons. The coach had six players. The one on the bench was very small in what was a physical contest between two agressive teams. Two players in foul trouble already in the first quarter, and the coach asked me if he could play with four. What were his reasons? He probably wanted to sit both players in foul trouble, or rest some guys, or maybe he just didn't want to put the little guy in. I'm not getting into that discussion, sorry. If he wants to play with four, he has his reasons.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:54am. |