refuses to play with 5

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Not sure how I am twisting 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?

Maybe, maybe not. The definition you're referring to only says that a dead ball flagrant (fight) is a technical.

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.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Maybe, maybe not. The definition you're referring to only says that a dead ball flagrant (fight) is a technical.

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.

Ok. But in order to reach that conclusion, one has to ignore the definition of a T. In the long run, not that big of a deal.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Ok. But in order to reach that conclusion, one has to ignore the definition of a T. In the long run, not that big of a deal.

Yet, to get to your conclusion, you have to ignore the definition of fighting and the definitions of a player technical from rule 10. The rules are simply contradictory here. I've pointed that out before and nothing has changed. Maybe they want it to be a personal in one case but the rules, as written, can be read to mean otherwise.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

In the long run, not that big of a deal.

The difference is important. Flagrant personal fouls mean that the fouled player (or their substitute) shoots the free throws, whereas, flagrant technical fouls mean any opposing team player could shoot the free throws.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The difference is important. Flagrant personal fouls mean that the fouled player (or their substitute) shoots the free throws, whereas, flagrant technical fouls mean any opposing team player could shoot the free throws.

We are talking about a fight. In most cases, a fight will involve more than one person...that's why I made the comment above. If A5 and B4 are charged with fighting, your objection to my statement is made moot.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

If A5 and B4 are charged with fighting, your objection to my statement is made moot.

This is a double foul, no free throws, point of interruption, my concern is certainly moot. What if it isn't a double foul? Is my concern still moot?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This is a double foul, no free throws, point of interruption, my concern is certainly moot. What if it isn't a double foul? Is my concern still moot?

No it is not. And it is one of the reasons why a punch thrown during a live ball is not a flagrant T. The player the punch was thrown at will be the shooter, or if punch landed and player is hurt, the sub will be the shooter.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

No it is not. And it is one of the reasons why a punch thrown during a live ball is not a flagrant T. The player the punch was thrown at will be the shooter, or if punch landed and player is hurt, the sub will be the shooter.

Camron's question still applies, why should a swing and a miss be penalized more heavily than a connected punch?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Adam

Camron's question still applies, why should a swing and a miss be penalized more heavily than a connected punch?

How is it being penalized more heavily?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

How is it being penalized more heavily?

Do you not consider the offended team getting to choose the free throw shooter a heavier penalty?

[rockyroad]

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.

[maven]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

If the fight occurs during a live ball, it is a flagrant personal.

Fighting is not limited to contact: throwing a punch and missing is fighting.

Oooh, trivia alert: name the one non-contact foul that can be a personal foul.

[mplagrow]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by maven

Fighting is not limited to contact: throwing a punch and missing is fighting.

Oooh, trivia alert: name the one non-contact foul that can be a personal foul.

? "A personal foul is a player foul which (sic) involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live ... contact by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is dead."

Originally Posted by mplagrow

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.

That's not a valid reason.

[maven]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

? "A personal foul is a player foul which (sic) involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live ... contact by or on an airborne shooter when the ball is dead."

I'm aware of the contradiction. I was tracing out the logic of rocky's statement that fighting (including non-contact fighting) during a live ball is a flagrant personal foul.