refuses to play with 5
 

Small Private School BV. Team A is athletic, Team B seems to have mainly offensive linemen in the frontcourt. Game is blowout from the start. VERY physical game by Team B. Second Team B player collects foul #5 on an elbow to the head (my partner calls it a "T"). Coach refuses to substitute and insists on finishing the game with 4 players on the floor in spite of having eligible subs on the bench. (Approx 3 minutes left). 10.5.2 looks possible but seems aimed at a delay rather than "refusal".

What would you have done?

(Yes, the game was a "difficult" one from the tip).

Let's see if this is correct.

T on the coach first for failure to sub.

If he still fails to provide a fifth player then the game shall be forfeit.

Coach, are you telling me all these guys aren't available to play?

Who determines if a player is eligible or not? Does a minor injury make a player eligible to play if they can just stand out there? If a player is being disciplined by a coach can an official over ride that and make that player eligible?

No, and no.

Had any of the kids on the bench played up to that point? If they had, they don't appear injured and you can really tell he's just being a PITA, call a T and then if he still doesn't bring in a player, declare a forfeit.

No sense dealing with someone who wants to have a temper tantrum.

Then play with 4 and let the coach know as soon as/if a player becomes available they need to check in at the table.

Why was the elbow to the head called a T? Was the ball dead? As far as playing with 4 goes, I would ask the coach if he is refusing to put in a sub, or if the players on his bench are not available to play. If his answer indicates the first then he is getting a T and a forefit if he continues to refuse to put another player in. If he answers the latter, then they play with 4. I dont care what his reason is at the time, injury, discipline, whatever, if he says they are not available, that is good enough for me.

Agreed, which is why I simply ask, "are you saying no one else is available?" His answer determines how I move forward.

We didn't address the initial "T" in our post game... my opinion, for what its worth, was simply that he was unclear on the details of the emphasis this year on elbows. (It was live ball, completely out of my primary (3 man) .... didn't see it).

I was just taking your statement to the next logical step. I knew what you meant, but maybe not everyone else knew the implications of the answer.

If it's clearly a live ball situation, you need to get together with your partner at the time. We make rule mistakes as a crew.

Had a partner call a T on a hard foul during a live ball last year. R thought it was a good call. I said it had to be flagrant or intentional because it was a live ball foul. "They" decided to stick with the T. Which I knew was incorrect, but sometimes you just need to pick your battles.

Agreed...
I have a few reasons for not "helping" there... but no excuse:o

I see too many people who forget this.

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?

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.

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.

Au Contraire, Mon Frère ...
 

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.

Let's Say That We're Shooting Free Throws ...
 

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.

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?

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

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.

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. :)

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.

? "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."

That's not a valid reason.

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.

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?)

You misread me...and I didn't mean either of the things you thought.

All I am saying is that if a fight takes place during a live ball, by definition it is not a flagrant T...it is a flagrant personal. If the fight takes place during a dead ball, then it is a flagrant T.

4-18: Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live.

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

10-3-8 Player Technical: A player shall not be charged with fighting.

Fighting is a technical foul. Fighting is fighting whether the ball is dead or live and whether contact occurs or not.
Straight out of the book.

4-19-4 is straight out of the book also...clearly says a flagrant T occurs during a dead ball.

This doesn't seem right.
 

A1 throws a punch at B1 and you hit your whistle. Immediately after your whistle B1 throws a punch back. Will can all agree that both players are disqualified. However are we to believe that A1 is charged with a flagrant foul, which means B1's sub must shoot the freethrows but then B1 is charged with a flagrant technical which means any memeber of team A, other than those that are dq'ed, can shoot the technical free throws. This wouldn't be a double foul as one is personal and one is technical.

When I had this scenario (not a punch, either, but a flagrant live-ball bear hug followed by retaliation), I was informed by my state (not in the mountain time zone) that the two fouls should have been considered a double foul.
Now, this has been a few years, and I have moved to another state. I am not sure that state would want the same ruling now, nor am I sure my current state would want that ruling.

That is, however, the way I'd be inclined to rule.

Then you ARE saying what I thought. And you're wrong. Fighting, live or dead ball, is a T. Period.

Thanks.

But I am not.

10-3-8 says fighting is a flagrant act. The definition of a technical says it is live ball non-contact, or dead ball contact. Therefore, a fight during a live ball is not a flagrant Technical as it not a dead ball situation. It is a flagrant personal.

Unless of course you can use the rules to show me that I am wrong instead of "just because you say so".

Right. And 10-3 deals entirely with player technicals and does not deal with personal fouls.

At all.

Because fighting CAN be a Technical...

Ok. Time to move on.

How bout those mechanics from that Desert Valley guy?

Goodness. People are being intentionally obtuse today. First I have someone tell me that no where in the rules does it say a batter is out when they hit an infield fly - when the rule they were talking about simply says, "The batter is out when they hit an infield fly."

Now you tell me fighting cannot be a live ball act, when 4-18 says, quite plainly: Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live.

Could he be a candidate for next season's "Dancing with the Stars"?

Someone is certainly being obtuse here...

I will go slowly for you. I never said fighting can not be a live ball act. I did say that if a fight occurs during a live ball, it is not a flagrant technical, but a flagrant personal.For reasons already stated.

A flagrant personal foul is a personal foul of a violent or savage nature. All personal fouls involve contact. Fighting may or may not involve contact. The contact, if it occurs, is secondary to the violent intent of the act.

The above is my interpretation.

The below is not.

10-3-8 tells us a player shall not be charged with fighting, listing the penalty as two free throws for the offended team plus the ball at the division line.

Where's the gray area here?

I was with you at first. But the penalty for ALL of 10-3, including 10-3-8 (fighting) is the penalty for a T, not a flagrant personal foul.

The rules are murky, but the only difference between a flagrant T and a flagrant personal foul is where you put the ball in play. Prolly not worth going to the mat over.

New trivia question: what live-ball, contact foul is a technical foul. :)

There's another key difference and that is who is entitled to shoot the free throws for the offended team. Could make a big difference in a tight game with a 20% FT shooter getting fouled.

Kettle?
 

Good point.

The Answer Man ...
 

I give up.

The summary of penalties at the end of rule 10, section 8, tells us that the penalty for flagrant fouls that are fighting is always two plus the ball at the division line...so of course if it is a flagrant T as in 10-3-8 that would be the penalty...as it would for a flagrant personal for fighting during a live ball.

Anyway...