A bit of a mess at an Indiana HS game

[Adam]

Originally Posted by okref

whites actions don't warrant an ejection. No punch and it wasn't flagrant. Would you jet her if the punch didn't happen, i would think no. Just because it lead to green throwing a punch isn't grounds for an ejection, imo.

4-18-2 indicates otherwise.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

4-18-2 indicates otherwise.

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.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

The original action was more than nothing IMO. I would be fine with a technical foul even if green didn't retaliate. I see this as a violation of 10-3-7

Possibly even be a violation of 10-3-6c. An argument could be made that she was baiting her opponent.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

It wasn't "nothing" IMO. If it's the first sign of trouble, she's getting a quick chat about keeping her head in the game.

If it's post-chat, then it's a T.

If it starts a fight, then it's a flagrant T either way, IMO.

[Ref16]

Originally Posted by Adam

It wasn't "nothing" IMO. If it's the first sign of trouble, she's getting a quick chat about keeping her head in the game.

If it's post-chat, then it's a T.

If it starts a fight, then it's a flagrant T either way, IMO.

This seems to be closest to my view on this play. I would need to have background on the events leading up to this point in the game to say whether or not the "get off me nudge" warrants a technical foul or an ejection in said play. The girl in green is most definitely gone though-that is blatant and inexcusable.

We don't know for sure what the game was like leading up to this point, but I would venture to say that tensions and emotions were most likely high even before this happened...and I would hope that it had been addressed with the players by the officials AND the coaches. Maybe it is only in my small part of the world, but the first time a player does anything that instigates any reaction from an opponant-no matter how small-that player is getting warned and their coach is being told, "Hey, coach-player X has been warned for (insert action here), please address this with them." It is game management IMO...

That being said, there are circumstances and times that this approach may not be the best for the game...just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Adam

4-18-2 indicates otherwise.

4-18-2 "An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act that causes a person to retaliate by fighting."

I don't see any intentional instigation here, one could argue for unintentional instigation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

4-18-2 "An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act that causes a person to retaliate by fighting."

I don't see any intentional instigation here, one could argue for unintentional instigation.

If you instigated, you instigated, it does not matter what your intentions were in the rule.

Peace

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you instigated, you instigated, it does not matter what your intentions were in the rule.

By that logic you could consider an seemingly innocuous action to be "instigation" if a player reacts to it and punches someone.

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.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's a rule book term with which I am unfamiliar.

It depends on how you define "instigation". See above.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

By that logic you could consider an seemingly innocuous action to be "instigation" if a player reacts to it and punches someone.

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.

First of all we are not dealing with the dictionary. The rulebook only talks about instigation and gives examples like trash talking that leads to a player being punched. It does not say in the rulebook or casebook that certain words are intentional instigation and others are unintentional. Since the first action clearly lead to a reaction to the green player that threw a punch, I am not going to split hairs on who did what first. It is on tape and the actions was unnecessary IMO. You may not agree, but I am ejecting the white player too. The rule does not say only a punch is fighting.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

By that logic you could consider an seemingly innocuous action to be "instigation" if a player reacts to it and punches someone.

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.



It depends on how you define "instigation". See above.

IMO, if you're going to require intent here as you indicate, the rule is useless. I agree it's not the best wording, but it makes more sense to me than requiring the player to have intentionally started a fight. The action itself was intentional.

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.

[Raymond]

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".

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

A1 gave a shove to B1 and B1 threw a punch. A1's act was unsporting IMO and therefore part of the fight.

This is the key. If you think that this was an unsporting act, then yes, kick 'em both out. That is debatable, but I can live with it. But we cannot simply say that whatever A did which provoked B and caused the fight must result in the ejection of both players. A is falling. B catches him, although somewhat roughly. A misinterprets the act and responds with a punch. The first act must be judged and a line must be drawn.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by AremRed

unintentional instigation.

That's a rule book term with which I am unfamiliar.