The Official Forum
Page 6 of 8 « First 45 6 78
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   A bit of a mess at an Indiana HS game (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/96889-bit-mess-indiana-hs-game.html)

Rich Wed Jan 01, 2014 12:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 916494)
I don't see this as a fight though, more as a sucker punch. Let me put it this way: if the initial "get off me" arm push by W43 resulted in no reaction by G2, would you give W43 a tech? I wouldn't. I would have a word with her and let my partners know she was on a short lease but nothing more. Now, I am fine giving W43 a tech for an action that resulted in a "fighting" re-action from G2, but I would not eject W43 because she is not actively participating in a fight.

1. Flagrant tech on G2 for the punch.
2. Unsporting tech on W43 for the initial arm thing.
3. Penalize the coaches as needed.
It's fighting by definition. But keep trying to wiggle this to fit what you want to call it.

OKREF Wed Jan 01, 2014 12:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 916494)
I don't see this as a fight though, more as a sucker punch. Let me put it this way: if the initial "get off me" arm push by W43 resulted in no reaction by G2, would you give W43 a tech? I wouldn't. I would have a word with her and let my partners know she was on a short lease but nothing more. Now, I am fine giving W43 a tech for an action that resulted in a "fighting" re-action from G2, but I would not eject W43 because she is not actively participating in a fight.

1. Flagrant tech on G2 for the punch.
2. Unsporting tech on W43 for the initial arm thing.
3. Penalize the coaches as needed.
White 43 gets a T for that every time, if I see it. No matter what happens after the shove. However, I have no problem with someone ejecting both if that's what they want to do.

jeremy341a Wed Jan 01, 2014 12:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 916494)
I don't see this as a fight though, more as a sucker punch. Let me put it this way: if the initial "get off me" arm push by W43 resulted in no reaction by G2, would you give W43 a tech? I wouldn't. I would have a word with her and let my partners know she was on a short lease but nothing more. Now, I am fine giving W43 a tech for an action that resulted in a "fighting" re-action from G2, but I would not eject W43 because she is not actively participating in a fight.

1. Flagrant tech on G2 for the punch.
2. Unsporting tech on W43 for the initial arm thing.
3. Penalize the coaches as needed.

I would most definetly give her a T even if there wasn't retaliation. I am surprised to hear others wouldn't. We don't give warnings for traveling. Why would we for unsporting acts?

As for the penalties. Initially you sai you wouldn't give her a T if there wasn't a punch. Yet later she gets a T in the scenario in which there wasn't a punch. Seems to me either her actions are T worthy or not.

She caused the fight. If she doesn't shove green no punches get thrown. Therefore my view is both are dq'ed.

Adam Wed Jan 01, 2014 01:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy341a (Post 916499)
I would most definetly give her a T even if there wasn't retaliation. I am surprised to hear others wouldn't. We don't give warnings for traveling. Why would we for unsporting acts?

As for the penalties. Initially you sai you wouldn't give her a T if there wasn't a punch. Yet later she gets a T in the scenario in which there wasn't a punch. Seems to me either her actions are T worthy or not.

She caused the fight. If she doesn't shove green no punches get thrown. Therefore my view is both are dq'ed.
Like it or not, and no matter how many times we try to say a T is no different than any other call, it is different. The fact is, I think this is borderline by itself.
In all honesty, by itself, I couldn't tell you whether I'd warn first on this or not. It depends on how the game had gone overall to that point.

But, on borderline stuff, warnings are generally expected here, so I oblige.

But if I was on this game, she'd be done.

Raymond Wed Jan 01, 2014 01:55am
I still go back to Adam's case book citation (4.18.2).

RULING: Both A1 and B1 are charged with a flagrant technical foul for fighting and are disqualified. A1's action is defined as fighting when the taunting caused B1 to retaliate by fighting. (Rule 10, Section 3; 10-3-6c: 10-3-8)

If you T A1 for her actions, then you have to eject her. You cannot penalize her actions (which would be Intentional Technical for dead ball contact, not an Unsporting Act), but then say it didn't lead to a fight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 916494)
...
...
2. Unsporting tech on W43 for the initial arm thing.
...
That arm thing is called "dead ball contact", which is termed as an Intentional Technical Foul. You need to read 10-3-6 & 10-3-7.

AremRed Wed Jan 01, 2014 02:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 916501)
That arm thing is called "dead ball contact", which is termed as an Intentional Technical Foul. You need to read 10-3-6 & 10-3-7.
Oh, I am aware. As OKREF recently reminded me, dead ball contact is ignored unless intentional or flagrant. I see the arm swipe as neither.

JetMetFan Wed Jan 01, 2014 02:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 916498)
White 43 gets a T for that every time, if I see it. No matter what happens after the shove.
Agreed. Plus if she gets a T when she shoves Green #2 maybe Green #2 holds back on retaliating. At any rate, in the scenario presented in the OP both players are done for the night in my book. The shove led to the fight. For me you do something that leads to a fight, you’re done.

Raymond Wed Jan 01, 2014 02:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 916502)
Oh, I am aware. As OKREF recently reminded me, dead ball contact is ignored unless intentional or flagrant. I see the arm swipe as neither.
Her shove is not "contact"? How do you figure that?

So you were willing to call a technical foul for contact you did not witness, but when you actually witness dead ball contact that leads to a fight, you want to call it an unsporting act and not eject the offender.

You appear to be intentionally swimming up stream.

AremRed Wed Jan 01, 2014 02:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 916505)
Her shove is not "contact"? How do you figure that?
Neither intentional or flagrant, silly :P

OKREF Wed Jan 01, 2014 02:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetMetFan (Post 916503)
Agreed. Plus if she gets a T when she shoves Green #2 maybe Green #2 holds back on retaliating. At any rate, in the scenario presented in the OP both players are done for the night in my book. The shove led to the fight. For me you do something that leads to a fight, you’re done.
So if white verbally taunts green, and green throws a punch, are you ejecting both? The verbal taunt lead to the fight. I don't see anyone tossing a player for a verbal taunt, or does the instigator have to make physical contact? In my eyes the contact in the OP wasn't flagrant, but was intentional.

Raymond Wed Jan 01, 2014 02:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 916506)
Neither intentional or flagrant, silly :P
I have to question your judgment if you say that contact was not intentional.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm an a$$-hole when it comes to these types of actions by players. I'm not going to play games with definitions, and I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt when it comes to intentions.

just another ref Wed Jan 01, 2014 03:46am
What if this exchange had taken place while the ball was live, how would that affect the way you would call it?

Camron Rust Wed Jan 01, 2014 05:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 916507)
So if white verbally taunts green, and green throws a punch, are you ejecting both?
Yes. Every single time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 916507)
The verbal taunt lead to the fight. I don't see anyone tossing a player for a verbal taunt, or does the instigator have to make physical contact? In my eyes the contact in the OP wasn't flagrant, but was intentional.
With your ruling of it being intentional it, by rule, automatically becomes flagrant because it led to a fight (a punch is defined as a fight).

You just don't have a choice unless your saying W's actions were not unsportsmanlike at all.

Also, dead ball contact that is short of being intentional or flagrant can still be unsportsmanlike.

JetMetFan Wed Jan 01, 2014 09:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF (Post 916507)
So if white verbally taunts green, and green throws a punch, are you ejecting both? The verbal taunt lead to the fight. I don't see anyone tossing a player for a verbal taunt, or does the instigator have to make physical contact? In my eyes the contact in the OP wasn't flagrant, but was intentional.
You got that right and NFHS case book play 4.18.2 supports tossing the player who taunted:

A1 dunks over B1 and then taunts B1. B1 retaliates and punches A1.

RULING: Both A1 and B1 are charged with a flagrant technical foul for fighting and are disqualified. A1's action is defined as fighting when the taunting caused B1 to retaliate by fighting. (Rule 10, Section 3; 10-3-6c: 10-3-8)

Rich Wed Jan 01, 2014 10:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed (Post 916506)
Neither intentional or flagrant, silly :P
She didn't mean to shove the other player? You want to go down that path?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:56am.
Page 6 of 8 « First 45 6 78
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1