Associational Debate
 

Off the ball during live play: A2 attempts to strike B2 with a fist or elbow. NO CONTACT is made.

What do you have? Our association has debated this for a while to the point of resurrecting the dead horse.

Flagrant and an ejection. A punch doesn't have to land to be deemed a flagrant.

Debated, why? Seems pretty simple and straightforward.

deecee:

I have a question for you. A Flagrant what?

MTD, Sr.

I would guess they are debating Flagrant Technical Foul or Flagrant Foul.

Could change who shoots FT's and where ball is put back into play.

I hope that's what they were debating, but there's really not much to debate here.

Without contact, it has to be a flagrant T.
With contact, I'd still probably go with a T but wouldn't fault anyone for going with a flagrant personal.

Pretty straightforward, no?

Rule 4-18

Fighting is a flagrant act and can occur when the ball is dead or live. Fighting includes, but is not limited to combative acts such as:

ART.*1 . . . An attempt to strike, punch or kick by using a fist, hands, arms, legs or feet regardless of whether contact is made.


Rule 10-3-8

A player shall not be charged with fighting.


I've got a flagrant T, DQ, two shots and throw-in at the division line.

Agree with the above...flagrant T.

In all honesty, if it's come to this... "debating for a while", it reflects poorly on the interpreter or those who are in charge at your association.

While it should not have to come to this, a simple request for clarification/ruling from your state interpreter would put this to bed........

....and if it doesn't, see the first sentence above......

T. Its still a fight in my book. Maybe one sided, but a fight nevertheless.

Yes, straightforward in the sense of Flagrant, but the debate occurs between Technical vs. Personal here. Told the guys I would poll the intellectual audience here.

I would like to hear the reasoning used by those advocating for a flagrant personal foul on a play that doesn't involve contact. Again, this debate should have lasted as long as it took for someone to get out their rule book and quote the rule. It should have been over in less than a minute.

Honestly, the OP should be an utter no-brainer. It HAS to be a flagrant, and CAN'T be a personal - Flagrant T is obvious.

That said - a punch WITH contact is more debatable - I feel it should still be Flagrant T - but I suspect there will be some, maybe half even, that would call it a Flagrant Foul - and I can't fault them for that.

You cant fault them because by rule they would be correct. Fouls that involve contact while the ball is live are by definition personal fouls.

Yet, by rule, fighting is defined to be a technical foul. And a punch is defined to be fighting. Therefore a punch, without qualification, is a T, by rule.

So you have two rules that contradict. When that occurs, it is usually the more specific rule that takes precedence. I see the definitions of fighting and punching as being very specific as opposed to the very general personal foul definition.

Additionally, does it make any sense at all for the penalty for a somewhat greater offense (swing and hit) to be less severe than the penalty for the less (swing an miss).

Ultimately, it is the swing that is penalized under the T, not the subsequent hit.

All together, I believe the T is the "right" result given the two conflicting rules.