refuses to play with 5

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[just another ref]

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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

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).

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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).

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?

[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.

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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

What killed the ball?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

What killed the ball?

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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

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

Huh? We were talking about fighting during a live ball - you asserted that if it's fighting then it MUST be a dead ball. So what killed the ball when someone starts fighting during a live ball (or did I misread you and you mean if someone starts fighting during a live ball, it's not really fighting?)