The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:30pm
Often wrong never n doubt
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 737
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.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:43pm
NFHS Official
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy341a View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:46pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by okref View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:53pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 29, 2013, 07:56pm
AremRed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 29, 2013, 08:06pm
Certified Non-Fanboy
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In the state where the Christmas trees grow
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by OKREF View Post
As for the coaches, I don't know what I would do there. Is them arguing between each a technical foul?
10-4-5 NOTE: The head coach may enter the court in the situation where a fight may break out - or has broken out - to prevent the situation from escalating.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 29, 2013, 08:18pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed View Post
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 29, 2013, 08:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed View Post
unintentional instigation.
That's a rule book term with which I am unfamiliar.
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 29, 2013, 08:25pm
AremRed
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
That's a rule book term with which I am unfamiliar.
It depends on how you define "instigation". See above.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 29, 2013, 08:35pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed View Post
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 29, 2013, 08:45pm
Often wrong never n doubt
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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.

Last edited by jeremy341a; Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 08:51pm.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:51pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:53pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by AremRed View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.

Last edited by Adam; Sun Dec 29, 2013 at 09:56pm. Reason: added thoughts
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 29, 2013, 10:13pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,865
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".
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:37pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
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.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Big mess in my biggest game! A Pennsylvania Coach Basketball 11 Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:23pm
State Championship Game mess up Moe Basketball 26 Wed Mar 07, 2007 01:54am
Incredible mess at end of game Mark Padgett Basketball 32 Fri Apr 07, 2006 07:57am
Indiana/Purdue game.... BradP Basketball 13 Wed Jan 28, 2004 02:41pm
Last 10 seconds on Indiana/Wisconsin Game The Observer Basketball 10 Fri Mar 10, 2000 08:23am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:35pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1