A bit of a mess at an Indiana HS game

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jeremy341a

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]

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.

Originally Posted by AremRed

...
...
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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Her shove is not "contact"? How do you figure that?

Neither intentional or flagrant, silly :P

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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]

What if this exchange had taken place while the ball was live, how would that affect the way you would call it?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Neither intentional or flagrant, silly :P

She didn't mean to shove the other player? You want to go down that path?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Neither intentional or flagrant, silly :P

Is that a HS official's thought process? Because that clearly is not what this situation is seen by the NF for sure.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

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.

You don't see what she did as intentional? She accidentally shoved the player who just fouled her?

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Adam

You don't see what she did as intentional? She accidentally shoved the player who just fouled her?

Exactly Adam...

And just to be clear. If you wanted to warn a player for certain contact in certain situations...I would have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with your judgement, or with your philosopy in this matter... as my partner. It would not stop me wanting to work with you in future games.

I would, however, discuss with you (maybe over a refreshment after the game) and in a good natured way... our differences in how we handle certain situations. You could take it or leave it...and I could take or leave your ideas. BUT...at least we are talking about situations and, hopefully, getting experience and getting better at reacting to these situations that we discuss.

When a Coach sees us walk into his gym...he should know what to expect.

Hopefully, most of the time...a well managed game, a controled game, a consistent game, a well called game, a game we can communicate with each other and maybe even have a little fun doing it.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

Exactly Adam...

Good natured or no, I think you’re going to end up agreeing to disagree with a lot of us. I can’t see any way W #43’s shove wasn’t on purpose. She felt G #2 near her after the foul and she pushed her away. Was it violent? Nope, but it was definitely done on purpose.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Good natured or no, I think you’re going to end up agreeing to disagree with a lot of us. I can’t see any way W #43’s shove wasn’t on purpose. She felt G #2 near her after the foul and she pushed her away. Was it violent? Nope, but it was definitely done on purpose.

Dan isn't the one who disagrees with that.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

... I think you’re going to end up agreeing to disagree with a lot of us.

Just to be perfectly clear...what am I going to agree to disagree "with a lot of us"?