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.

I can fault them a bit because they (and you) are NOT correct - but can't fault them too much because if they only read the rulebook, they would be left with the conclusion that it's a personal foul (as per your explanation) and it's also a technical foul (per the definition of a punch) ... lacking clinic guidance or published stuff that people might only see by living on a forum like this - I can't fault them for incorrectly guessing which one takes precedence.

1. Fighting is not defined as a technical foul. It is defined as a flagrant act that can occur when the ball is live or dead. Read rule 4 for reference.

2. Flagrant fouls can be either personal or technical. Again, see rule 4.

3. The penalties are the same whether contact occurs or not. Two shots and the ball for the offended team. The only difference is where the ball will be put in play and who shoots the free throw. I assume the slight difference you are referring to is the fact that a player can be ejected by getting two technical fouls, but this has no bearing in this instance, because the player is going to be ejected immediately for the flagrant foul.

No, the significant (not slight) difference being referred to is the "who shoots the free throw" part.

And the T takes precedence (according to more than one clinic, including one just 2 nights ago where this very question came up).

Think about it. A) Dude clocks #34 who can't shoot a free throw to save his life ... or B) Dude tried to hit him and misses. Who, realistically, thinks the rulesmakers want the penalty for A (34 shoots) to be LESS THAN the penalty for B (anyone shoots)?

Under Rule 10-3-8 say: "Be charged with fighting."

That is under the Player Technical section. Not sure how you would not call a fight to not be a technical. Now if you do not consider this a fight, then it would be just a flagrant act. But I cannot see not calling a punch a fight by definition.

Peace

1 & 2: see 10-3-8 as cited by Jeff. It is pretty specific and unambiguous.

3. Who shoots the FTs is a distinct difference. With the T, anyone on the team shoots. With a personal, the offended player shoots. That could be a big difference. The throwin spot will likely be less of an issue as the location for the T throwin may or may not be an improvement in the location and, if I were a coach, I'd rather have 2 FTs by my best FT shooter with a mid-court throwin vs. 2 FTs by my worst FT shooter with a throwin under the basket.

I think I can now see why the Association is having this debate.

Not about the situation the OP said they were debating. I think everyone here agrees on that one -clearly Flagrant T --- no other real options or discussion needed.

It is the situation where the swinger makes contact that is currently being debated.

I don't know what the debate is. The language is clear. Fighting is a Flagrant T. Contact or not is irrelevant. It's not a discussion as far as I am concerned. The books are clear with this act, even though the general contact v non-contact, in general may be somewhat ambiguous, in this case it's not.

A punch, strike, or vicious elbow which makes contact during a live ball is a flagrant personal foul. One that doesn't is a flagrant technical foul.

8.6.3 SITUATION A:
A1 is attempting the second free throw of a two-shot foul. While the second free throw is in flight, A2 and B1 punch each other simultaneously.

RULING: Both A2 and B1 are disqualified for fighting. Since this is a double *personal foul, no free throws are awarded. The ball is put in play at the point of interruption. If A1's free throw is successful, Team B is awarded a throw-in from anywhere along the end line. If A1's free throw is unsuccessful, the alternating-possession procedure is used. (4-19-8; 6-4-3f; 7-5-3b; 4-36; 10-3-8; 10 Penalty 1c, 8a(1))

All nice, but 10-3-8 says otherwise. Another case of rules and cases being inconsistent.

Couple of things: How often do you see two guys throw the first punch simultaneously? Even if they do, if two guys punching each other isn't a fight, what is?

Also, this case play is about how to resume play after a false double foul, not about the specifics of what the foul in the case is.

NOthing has changed in these rules since we first discussed the contradicion 5 or 10 years ago.