A bit of a mess at an Indiana HS game

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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'll agree with this.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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 don't recall anyone saying otherwise.

[OKREF]

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.

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't recall anyone saying otherwise.

It seems they did.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

It seems they did.

Then you read me wrong. If A1 hadn't done anything T worthy here, I wouldn't advocate tossing her.

What she did was T-worthy. Where did I say otherwise?