![]() |
Both players are gone. White's actions are unsportsmanlike and directly led to the fight and all the other extracurriculars. If it was seen it can't be ignored. I'll bet you one thing. She will think twice before giving anyone the get off me nudge in the future.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
But in 4.18.2 the initial action, in and of itself, would warrant a technical foul. So it this causes a fight, both players are gone. In the OP the original action, in and of itself, was nothing, in my opinion. That makes a big difference. |
Quote:
I don't see any intentional instigation here, one could argue for unintentional instigation. |
Quote:
PENALTY: (Art. 5) Flagrant foul, disqualification of individual offender, but only one technical-foul penalty is administered regardless of the number of offenders. This one foul is also charged indirectly to the head coach. If the head coach is an offender, an additional flagrant technical foul is charged to directly to the coach and penalized. |
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
|
Quote:
According to the dictionary, instigation means "to cause to come about". Did the action by W43 "cause to come about" the punch by G2? Yes. However, 4-18-2 specifies "An attempt to instigate a fight". Was the action by W43 "an attempt to instigate a fight"? No. Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
Possibly even be a violation of 10-3-6c. An argument could be made that she was baiting her opponent. |
Quote:
If it's post-chat, then it's a T. If it starts a fight, then it's a flagrant T either way, IMO. |
Quote:
I'd much rather get rid of both eggs. Added note: "Useless" may be a bit strong. It's possible the rule is intended to only apply to a player attempting to bait his opponent into a fight. |
A1 gave a shove to B1 and B1 threw a punch. A1's act was unsporting IMO and therefore part of the fight.
I believe Judge Judy calls it coming to court with "unclean hands". |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44am. |