refuses to play with 5

[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?