Wow
 

From a game last night in Indiana,Haven't seen anything like this in a few years.
Girls' Basketball Game Turns Ugly With Some Help From Skylar Diggins

This is exactly why I like the new rule that head coaches can come on the floor during a fight without beckoning.

A bit of a mess at an Indiana HS game
 

Girls' Basketball Game Turns Ugly With Some Help From Skylar Diggins

The article has some details and some Twitter drama that is newsworthy because former Notre Dame star Skylar Diggins was involved. But there is also a video. I think I would have a double tech, with the one in green a flagrant. Also I don't like the "ejection" signal.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2EMhnee-ZoQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Some good it did, opposing coaches started arguing twice and almost came to blows. Game management did a terrible job keeping people off the court too and I didn't like a single thing the refs did.

Duplicate thread, I think.

Great video to learn from.
 

Agree. Don't like a single thing refs did.

Exactly how do you expect 1 or 2 people (game management) to keep so many people form coming onto the court? They probably don't have large budgets to hire a couple dozen security guards for every game.

Plus, what exactly would you have done that the officials didn't?

as well as the one keeping the assistants on the bench.....

Down Goes Frazier! Down Goes Frazier! Down Goes Frazier! (Howard Cosell, 1973) ...
 

Agree. Considering that there was a knockout punch involved, I believe that the officials, and game management, did a pretty good job of keeping things under control. I would have liked to see how the fouls were reported, and penalized, especially if to see if the officials caught the White player pushing away the Green player, and if, and how, the assistant coaches, that came onto the floor to help restore order, were penalized.

Camron, come on you know better. They probably would have hit their emergency, "easy" button and 20 security personnel would have popped out. I agree, 2 refs, 1 cop and maybe 2 or 3 administrators. Not much you can do.

I do hope the coaches each get at least 1 tech each. I would also, possibly, have some fans removed for coming on the court (but in all honesty if they were actually there to help, probably not). I would have a false double on the players involved.

1 T for white and a flagrant for green. I also wouldn't hover over the down players but I would work on making sure each team got to their bench and that nothing else escalates.

1) two of the officials are wearing belts
2) C is leaning side to side during transition
3) neither L nor T close down when W43 pushes off with her arm, or when G2 begins to advance on her
4) neither L or T attempt to separate the players, instead they stand back and just put their arms in the air
5) L ejects the girl and keeps his arm in the air for 35 seconds while ignoring anything else he should be taking care of
6) C allows the woman in the neon green shirt to come on the floor and grab G2
7) none of the officials send the players to their benches
8) none of the officials notice two opposing coaches confronting each other until too late, twice
9) none of the coaches involved in the confrontation are issued technicals, hopefully they were teched later
10) dude in plaid green shirt is allowed to wander all over the court from 0:17 on (could be off-duty cop, def not game admin)
11) the coaches again confront each other, with an official standing right there not doing anything. Nothing productive can come from this.

Being Sarcastic In Connecticut ...
 

Agree. If those two officials were not wearing belts, then the knockout punch, and its aftermath, would never have occurred. See what happens when officials try to hold their pants up. The horror.

Question
 

To my understanding this is discouraged anyhow.
Am I correct? Or am I in need of enlightenment?

Maybe now so many girls in the area won't want to try to wear those Skylar Diggins headthingies with the tails flopping five inches below the knot.
Naw, they still will.

*Maybe* if one of the officials had come in with a little urgency after White #13 shoved Green #2 following Green #2’s foul they could’ve stopped the punch but that’s a maybe given there was a second – maybe two – between the shove and the punch. Cosmetically it would’ve looked better, especially since the T was in frame as the punch took place.

The line from the story “That prompted coaches, referees, and other adults to rush the court before things got out of hand” is a bit of a stretch. No one seemed to be moving too fast to break things up. I haven’t been in many fight situations – three in 20+ years, including one this season – but they generally involve a heck of a lot more running and panic than this one.

See my response's above.

I'm not sure about the basketball direction, most of my confrontation training comes from soccer. The theory there is to "be the 3rd man in". If the officials are the 3rd person on the scene after the original two players then most of the other players won't try to retaliate. In this situation getting in the area and immediately sending the players to their benches would be best. Certainly one official should hang back and collect player numbers/monitor the benches but the other two officials should be in the middle right away.

Once the coaches started engaging each other rather than their players, they're all done.

I think basketball fights are a bit different than soccer fights :p. Less faking maybe :D.

If things escalate I can guarantee you the "3rd man in" won't change anything.

As deecee said, over half of those points are irrelevant, unreasonable, guesses, or just wrong. You got a few of them right however (5,7,8, and 11). But then again, you don't know if they were using their voices or not on most of those. Maybe they had too many situations that drew their attention to catch all of them. Makes it look more like you just want to bust their chops from your armchair than have a serious commentary.

Wouldn't that be a flagrant on both? White committed an unsportsmanlike act that caused green to retaliate by fighting.

When soccer players fight, they fight. The flopping happens when they are playing :P

I know I was nitpicking with the belt and leaning thing but Camron asked me "exactly would you have done that the officials didn't?". I wanted to list everything I saw. Take it or leave it.

I said I didn't like a single thing the refs did, which after 10 viewings I still don't. You asked me exactly why, and I answered. I didn't list those things until you asked, and I think that proves I'm not just out to bust chops. I listed everything I saw; if you think those thing are irrelevant or guesses, fine. I'm willing to have a "serious commentary" if you like, I think everything I listed was something I would do differently.

Not sure if I have anything on white. What she did does not justify the retaliation.

Yeah that's nothing. Happens all the time in all sports. Green 2 took offense for some reason.

I would certainly have nothing on it own, but when it causes retaliation, I don't feel I can ignore it.

I don't think we can go by that. I say "Thank you," but all you hear is "____K you" and assume the worst and retaliate. It happens.

Technical foul on white for the dead ball forearm, green is ejected. As for the coaches, I don't know what I would do there. Is them arguing between each a technical foul?

That is not what I said. If it is something unsportsmanlike, you can sometimes ignore it if it is smaller and deal with it in various ways but when it causes a fighting level retaliation, you can no longer ignore it. I'm not saying a benign action becomes unsportsmanlike because someone incorrectly reacts to it.

Agreed. White #13's action after the foul led to Green #2's actions. That being said it would've been nice had one of the crew reacted to White #13's action when it happened. If someone at least rushes in blowing a whistle maybe - and I stress maybe - Green #2 doesn't do what she did since she may have been aware an official was on the way.

To repeat what I said in my first post, the lack of urgency on the part of the crew is my main concern.

She appeared to instigate the situation. Either way I am probably dumping both players. It might be a HTBT situation to know if other things were going on or if something was said, but I have no problem with the white player being dumped too.

Peace

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you instigated, you instigated, it does not matter what your intentions were in the rule.

Peace

That's a rule book term with which I am unfamiliar.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

I don't recall anyone saying otherwise.

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?

This is why taunting and other things are often emphasized by the NF or local state organizations, because we allow these kinds of things to happen and we wonder why we have problems later.

Peace

I'm late to the party and the original clip from youtube has been removed. The clip below shows the shove and punch but I'm assuming not as much of the aftermath discussed previously.

UPDATE: Player ejected after punch thrown during SB Washington vs. Oregon-Davis game | Local - Home

The one thing I can agree with is the lack of urgency on the part of the officials after the initial shove. Maybe this came out of nowhere but this is a reminder of the importance of dead ball awareness and trying to put out fires as quickly as possible.

On a side note, I lived in South Bend for 3 years and know the Washington coach, Skylar Diggins step-father, very well from my time there as well as professional connections since I moved back to the DC area. FWIW, he's a great guy, does a ton in the community, and his family is first class all the way. He's also done a good bit of officiating himself.

All of that has little to nothing to do with discussing the officiating aspects of the play but just thought I would add that given the title of the original link.

Video
 

Here's the original. Silly, silly people. Trying to keep it from us...


<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/v_BzKTJYHOU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You may not care, but the second I see an official wearing a belt, my perception of them changes in a negative way. Period. I have never seen a top notch official wearing a belt at the HS or college level. (At least not since the early 1990s.)

You can keep on bragging about your belt all you like and the fact that they're still OK in CT (where you work zero 3-person, which is another indicator for me on the state of officiating in CT), but all this does is make me think that CT is even further behind the curve than where I live. Which is, in some ways, pretty hard since we're still working way too much 2-person for my liking.

Now, as for the play. Both are getting ejected. I'd have a technical foul on the initial shove by white and this started a fight. wouldn't even be a second thought in my mind. I also like to think that on the shove we're closing quickly and maybe with a strong whistle or two that punch doesn't happen.

The dead ball officiating (especially the baseball ejection mechanic by the guy with his shirt coming out of his pants and his standing over the injured player with his hand in the air) doesn't impress me a bit. Another official turns his eyes away form the court and the other players still there and doesn't seem to urgent about the entire situation. Those three officials need to become very well seen and the center of attention at that point and that just doesn't happen.

This whole thread is just a reminder that things like this can come from anywhere at any time and we need to be ready. Even in a girls game. :D

When In Rome, Except For Belts ...
 

I'm not bragging. I'm commenting on how some Forum members are open to the old "When in Rome ..." credo, while others aren't. I'm totally against the "When in Texas" concept of sounding one's whistle before entering the court to warn players to stop dunking. I would view it as silly here in Connecticut. However, I would never question that this is the right thing to do in Texas. I'm pretty certain that very good high school varsity officials, in many parts of the country, don't shower after the game, but simply leave in uniform. That's fine for those other parts of the country, but it would be considered a major faux pas here in Connecticut, enough to slow down one's movement up the officiating ladder.

Belts are allowed here in Connecticut. Period. Belts are neither encouraged, nor are they discouraged. Period. This is how our cadets are trained. Whether one wears beltless slacks, or one wears a belt, has absolutely no bearing on one's rating, ranking, the level games one gets assigned, the number of games one gets assigned, or whether, or not, one "makes" the state tournament list. Period. Are you accusing me of lying?

Then you certainly haven't seen our top Connecticut officials working games. Most don't wear belts, a few veterans do. I would never discuss the quality of your officials until I have actually seen them work games. If you were to tell me that some of your top officials work games wearing shoes with quite a bit of white on them, I would never prejudge them to be poor officials, until I actually observed them work games. Wearing all black shoes does not necessarily make a great official, especially in regions where shoes with some white on them may be neither encouraged, nor may they be discouraged.

Regarding three person games. The winningest coaches in the state, those that play an up tempo, defensively oriented, man to man defense, full court press, style of basketball, don't want a third official. Period. They believe that it will lead to more fouls, more free throws, more players in foul trouble, and fewer wins for them. These guys are the leaders of the Connecticut Coaches Association, a very strong organization here in the state. They strongly lobby our state interscholastic sports governing body to not move to three person games. Our state interscholastic sports governing body listens to these coaches, and their organization. Officials want to go to three person games. Many coaches want to go to three person games. A minority of vocal coaches, leading a very strong lobbying organization, don't, so we don't.

Which guy in the video is the Washington head coach?

Thanks! I think the officials and game management were fortunate here because things could have really escalated. The officials seem pretty lackadaisical throughout the whole thing.

He is the shorter, bald black guy in the green shirt who all of the coaches in grey seem to get a word in with.

I've got a T on white, and a flagrant T and ejection for green, bench T on white for assistants all over the floor, and a T for white's head coach for his taunting actions, possibly even an ejection depending on what he was yelling. Also see some green assistants out there, so give them a bench T as well. Green head coach seemed to behave himself.

I'm sure I'm wrong on some of this, but that is what I would have.

In the scenario above you have the initial common foul on green that you need to shoot for (if in bonus), the two player technicals cancel, the two bench Ts cancel, Green is shooting two technical free throws for the tech on white coach, green ball at division line.

OK, now tell me where I screwed up... :D

edit to add: thanks Jets for adding that video, I was late to the party and missed it the first time.

In a fight situation, the HC gets to come out to tend to his players and help prevent/stop the fight. If he does anything else, particularly engaging the opponents in an adversarial manner, he gets a flagrant T.
All of his assistants that came on the court get tossed as well.

I have 5 ejections based on the video:

1.) Flagrant technical foul on W43- Fight Instigation
2.) Flagrant technical foul on G2- Fighting
3/4.) Flagrant technical foul on both head coaches- Leaving the bench during a fight for reasons other than preventing the situation from escalating.
5.) Flagrant technical foul on W asst. coach- Leaving the bench during a fight. (He initially goes on to the floor to tend to the injured player, and I might have given him the benefit of the doubt to allow him on the floor because of that, but then he starts jawing at the official and finally confronts the green head coach, including engaging him by putting both hands on him.

W43's sub will shoot any bonus free throws for the common foul, followed by 2 FT's for green, followed by a division line throw-in for green.

You put into words pretty well what my thoughts are. That said, I've never had something like this in basketball in 27 seasons (I've had a bench clearing or two in baseball).

This is the time when you wear out the whistle and make yourself as visible as possible and they certainly didn't do that.

Initial foul on green: two shots (assuming bonus).
Double flagrant on the initial two participants. (no shots)
Four flagrant technical fouls on white for what seems to be the entire coaching staff coming onto the court (they all, at some point, antagonized the situation), so the HC doesn't get a break. Not that it would really matter, other than the difference between 6 and 8 FTs: but the HC will be ejected anyway due to the three indirect Ts he gets for his assistant coaches coming onto the court. I've got 8 free throws for green.
One FTF on the green coach due to his engagement with the white coaching staff. Sadly, I can't tell how many of these other people are coaches for green since they. Any of them who are coaches also get Ts. So, at the very least, the HC is done, and green gets two fewer FTs, down to 6.

The officials really should have done everything they could to clear the court and keep a neutral zone between the benches. White's player was down in her own FC, so she could have been tended to without any coaches talking to each other.

So: Two shots for white.
Eight shots for green.
Ball to green at half court (if there are any coaches left for white and/or green).

I'd also be tempted to call a FTF on W35 for her half-assed shove of G2 while G11 was doing the right thing and pushing her away, but I'd probably not do it.

One thing the officials did right was keep track of the ball.:rolleyes:

I can't imagine NOT whacking the white player, for a shove to the chest of the green player.

In a game I am officiating...if a player contacts another player in the way this player initially did...It's Tea Time...blowing whistle hard...looking confident in my decision. (Hopefully)

For you officials that let H.S. players shove each other (even if it's just a simple "get out of my way") IMO you might want to re-think these actions.

Sidenote: Most of us would probably whack the player if she/he just taunted the other player...why not then the T for contact? C'mon man. ;)

This seems to be closest to my view on this play. I would need to have background on the events leading up to this point in the game to say whether or not the "get off me nudge" warrants a technical foul or an ejection in said play. The girl in green is most definitely gone though-that is blatant and inexcusable.

We don't know for sure what the game was like leading up to this point, but I would venture to say that tensions and emotions were most likely high even before this happened...and I would hope that it had been addressed with the players by the officials AND the coaches. Maybe it is only in my small part of the world, but the first time a player does anything that instigates any reaction from an opponant-no matter how small-that player is getting warned and their coach is being told, "Hey, coach-player X has been warned for (insert action here), please address this with them." It is game management IMO...

That being said, there are circumstances and times that this approach may not be the best for the game...just my opinion.

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.

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.

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?

Bonus coverage.
 

No, I do not think so.

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.

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.

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

It's fighting by definition. But keep trying to wiggle this to fit what you want to call it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Neither intentional or flagrant, silly :P

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.

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.

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

Yes. Every single time.
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.

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)

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

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.

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

Two Disqualifications ...
 

Nit picking note: We disqualify (with rare exception) players, we eject adults.

Agree. If the "push" were an isolated incident, then I probably would simply have sternly spoken to the "pusher", and, as an isolated incident, I would not have charged a technical foul (dead ball intentional) to the "pusher". However, once the "push" caused the "punch", that now becomes a "fight", and now the situation leaves me but one choice, two separate flagrant technical fouls charged, disqualification for both, and paperwork for whomever is the referee in my game.

Would this be a double technical foul, or a false double technical foul, i.e., point of interruption, or free throw shooting?

Thank-you for that correction...I would "disqualify" both.


This, to me, is a bigger deal than terminology...i.e. disqualification/ejection.

Your above statement has to do with philosophy (Game Management)...in my game Technical foul, no warning for dead ball contact, as shown on video, in the OP

Double Technical...POI. (If my initial T did not STOP the "sucker punch")

Note: Hopefully, my loud whistle, my dramatic whack signal, and my strong presence of closing in stopped all the other nonsense.
(Can you tell I have a bit of an ego?);)

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.;)

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.

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

Honestly I have a hard time believing this would happen in any of our games. Because you all look for trouble and do things that make the kids know they are going to be taken care of and you will take care of any crap they start to think about.

I dont believe that shove was the first sign of the trouble it was the last sign of trouble. Just how they handled it makes me have very little faith in the pre-signs and management of what probably lead up to it.

Good officals elevate their game for a rivalry. Good officials elevate their game for a competitive game. Good officals look for the only thing that could mess up this type of game. Just my 2 cents worth.