A bit of a mess at an Indiana HS game

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by OKREF

White 43 gets a T for that every time, if I see it. No matter what happens after the shove.

Agreed. Plus if she gets a T when she shoves Green #2 maybe Green #2 holds back on retaliating. At any rate, in the scenario presented in the OP both players are done for the night in my book. The shove led to the fight. For me you do something that leads to a fight, you’re done.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

Agreed. Plus if she gets a T when she shoves Green #2 maybe Green #2 holds back on retaliating. At any rate, in the scenario presented in the OP both players are done for the night in my book. The shove led to the fight. For me you do something that leads to a fight, you’re done.

So if white verbally taunts green, and green throws a punch, are you ejecting both? The verbal taunt lead to the fight. I don't see anyone tossing a player for a verbal taunt, or does the instigator have to make physical contact? In my eyes the contact in the OP wasn't flagrant, but was intentional.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by OKREF

So if white verbally taunts green, and green throws a punch, are you ejecting both?

Yes. Every single time.

Originally Posted by OKREF

The verbal taunt lead to the fight. I don't see anyone tossing a player for a verbal taunt, or does the instigator have to make physical contact? In my eyes the contact in the OP wasn't flagrant, but was intentional.

With your ruling of it being intentional it, by rule, automatically becomes flagrant because it led to a fight (a punch is defined as a fight).

You just don't have a choice unless your saying W's actions were not unsportsmanlike at all.

Also, dead ball contact that is short of being intentional or flagrant can still be unsportsmanlike.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by OKREF

So if white verbally taunts green, and green throws a punch, are you ejecting both? The verbal taunt lead to the fight. I don't see anyone tossing a player for a verbal taunt, or does the instigator have to make physical contact? In my eyes the contact in the OP wasn't flagrant, but was intentional.

You got that right and NFHS case book play 4.18.2 supports tossing the player who taunted:

A1 dunks over B1 and then taunts B1. B1 retaliates and punches A1.

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)

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

You got that right and NFHS case book play 4.18.2 supports tossing the player who taunted:

A1 dunks over B1 and then taunts B1. B1 retaliates and punches A1.

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)

Good enough for me. I'm convinced. Glad we had this discussion.