A bit of a mess at an Indiana HS game

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

I agree 100%. There is no way I'm letting this go no matter what preceded it. This will never get a warning from me. It will always be a T. If it isn't a T at what point are you drawing the line. How hard does the shove need to be?

Are you talking about the hypothetical where her actions did not cause a fight?

As I noted before, if this had been the first sign of anything, I could see a quick (and concise) chat. If we'd already had that chat, it's an easy T. I'd have no problem backing a partner who skipped the chat, though.

I'm guessing, however, that this wasn't the first sign of trouble.

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by Adam

Are you talking about the hypothetical where her actions did not cause a fight?

As I noted before, if this had been the first sign of anything, I could see a quick (and concise) chat. If we'd already had that chat, it's an easy T. I'd have no problem backing a partner who skipped the chat, though.

I'm guessing, however, that this wasn't the first sign of trouble.

Yes I am saying if this is the only action. I don't like giving warning for unsportsmanlike activities. I don't understand why we would warn or this when we would call a travel on the first offense.

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm guessing, however, that this wasn't the first sign of trouble.

The white team is the highest ranked 1A (lowest division) girls team in the state, and was undefeated. The green team is a fairly high ranked 4A (highest division) school. Coupled with the jersey retirement ceremony for Skylar Diggins, both teams had a lot to prove.

An IHSAA commissioner said "The game officials assessed the proper penalty of ejection" but I doubt if they will comment on the management of the game up to that point.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

The white team is the highest ranked 1A (lowest division) girls team in the state, and was undefeated. The green team is a fairly high ranked 4A (highest division) school. Coupled with the jersey retirement ceremony for Skylar Diggins, both teams had a lot to prove.

An IHSAA commissioner said "The game officials assessed the proper penalty of ejection" but I doubt if they will comment on the management of the game up to that point.

Were both players DQed?

Originally Posted by Adam

Were both players DQed?

No, I do not think so.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

Were both players DQed?

Only 1 deserved to be ejected. The elbow by the girl in white wasn't flagrant. She should get a T, and the girl in green should get tossed. IMO only.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Only 1 deserved to be ejected. The elbow by the girl in white wasn't flagrant. She should get a T, and the girl in green should get tossed. IMO only.

If the unsporting act gets T'd, and it leads to a fight, then that person should be ejected as part of the fight.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If the unsporting act gets T'd, and it leads to a fight, then that person should be ejected as part of the fight.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I
2. Unsporting tech on W43 for the initial arm thing.

4-19-14: An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul..........

If you want to call a technical I would say it would have to fall under 4-19-5c

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by AremRed

... if the initial "get off me" arm push by W43 resulted in no reaction by G2, would you give W43 a tech?

Absolutely. Why would you let H.S. kids push each other? It could lead to something else later. Maybe a "sucker punch"?

If you were a teacher in a classroom...would you let a student shove another student and just give him/her a WARNING? Maybe...but one Technical can be considered a STERN WARNING...just like in the classroom.

If your kid got shoved in the classroom...I don't think you would even mind an "EJECTION" from the classroom on the kid that did the shoving...would you? (I guess we could ask rockyroad how he would handle a classroom shove)

Also...if a player taunted another player and that player punched the taunter...what would you do? I eject both.

[referee99]

UPDATE: Saturday's girls basketball brawl in the hands of the IHSAA