What would you do?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Just to confirm. If a punch is thrown, and doesn't connect, then there's no contact? Right? So, if it was during a live ball, then it would be a technical foul? Right?

No, it would be a flagrant personal because you don't have to connect with the other person to be charged with fighting.

NF 4-18

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

ART. 2
An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act that causes a person to retaliate by fighting.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If a punch is thrown, and doesn't connect, then there's no contact? Right? So, if it was during a live ball, then it would be a technical foul? Right?

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

No, it would be a flagrant personal because you don't have to connect with the other person to be charged with fighting.

I agree with you that one does not have to "connect" to be charged with fighting, but are you sure that it would be a personal flagrant foul (live ball, non-contact) rather than a technical flagrant foul?

4-18 Fighting
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.
ART. 2 An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act that
causes a person to retaliate by fighting.

4-19 Foul
A foul is an infraction of the rules which is charged and is penalized.
ART. 1 A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with
an opponent while the ball is live ...
ART. 4 A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or
savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable
conduct.
ART. 5 A technical foul is:
b. A noncontact foul by a player.

The difference impacts who gets to shoot the free throws, the fouled player, or any player, even one the bench.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I agree with you that one does not have to "connect" to be charged with fighting, but are you sure that it would be a personal flagrant foul (live ball, non-contact) rather than a technical flagrant foul?

4-18 Fighting
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.
ART. 2 An attempt to instigate a fight by committing an unsporting act that
causes a person to retaliate by fighting.

4-19 Foul
A foul is an infraction of the rules which is charged and is penalized.
ART. 1 A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with
an opponent while the ball is live ...
ART. 4 A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or
savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable
conduct.
ART. 5 A technical foul is:
b. A noncontact foul by a player.

The difference impacts who gets to shoot the free throws, the fouled player, or any player, even one the bench.

My mistake. Thank you, good sir.

[BillyMac]

... How's that for a mixed metaphor?

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

My mistake. Thank you, good sir.

You're too kind. It's me who may be mistaken. Maybe some esteemed Form members will weigh in on this issue. My opinion is: no contact, live ball, it must be a technical foul, but I've been wrong before, it only happened once, a long time ago, but I was wrong that one time, and only that one time.

[Mregor]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I want to see what kind of answers I get, before I tell you how I handled this.


Yellow 22 is lying flat on the floor, on his stomach, as White 30 is running past, yellow 22 jumps up and tries to grab white 30 by the foot, trying to trip him, hard to tell if any contact was made, but if any was it was very slight, and not enough to make white 30 go to the floor, but the intent is clear. What would you do? Background. Late season playoff game, #1 vs #2.

I got nothing. Intent has no bearing unless there is a foul. Sounds like you aren't even sure there was contact. If I thought he tried to trip, I'd talk to coach and let him/her know if he had succeeded, he would be in the showers, but you can't penalize on intent alone.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You're too kind. It's me who may be mistaken. Maybe some esteemed Form members will weigh in on this issue. My opinion is: no contact, live ball, it must be a technical foul, but I've been wrong before, it only happened once, a long time ago, but I was wrong that one time, and only that one time.

Billy, your understanding is correct.
Contact during a live ball is a personal foul.
A non-contact foul during a live ball is a technical foul.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mregor

I got nothing. Intent has no bearing unless there is a foul. Sounds like you aren't even sure there was contact. If I thought he tried to trip, I'd talk to coach and let him/her know if he had succeeded, he would be in the showers, but you can't penalize on intent alone.

Your response is inaccurate.
If A1 attempts to strike B1 with his fist or elbow during a live ball, but B1 is able to duck or dodge the intended blow, A1 still committed a foul and the official has the authority to penalize it.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Mregor

I got nothing. Intent has no bearing unless there is a foul. Sounds like you aren't even sure there was contact. If I thought he tried to trip, I'd talk to coach and let him/her know if he had succeeded, he would be in the showers, but you can't penalize on intent alone.

I'm certainly going to have something. This play was a done intentional and with intent. I wish I knew how to embed. I just went back and looked at the video. It was off a missed shot, the White team player did have the ball an d the defensive player was on the ground and actually lunged and did make contact with the foot.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mregor

I got nothing. Intent has no bearing unless there is a foul. Sounds like you aren't even sure there was contact. If I thought he tried to trip, I'd talk to coach and let him/her know if he had succeeded, he would be in the showers, but you can't penalize on intent alone.

Sure you can, that's why fighting only requires the culprit to attempt to punch someone. Actually landing the punch isn't required.

If I thought the player was intentionally trying to trip an opponent and just missed, I'd seriously consider a flagrant T. At minimum it's a T, and I'm waiting until the offense puts up a shot attempt or backs out of a drive before calling it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OKREF

I'm certainly going to have something. This play was a done intentional and with intent. I wish I knew how to embed. I just went back and looked at the video. It was off a missed shot, the White team player did have the ball an d the defensive player was on the ground and actually lunged and did make contact with the foot.

In that case, I'd probably go with an intentional personal foul, or a flagrant personal foul.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by Adam

In that case, I'd probably go with an intentional personal foul, or a flagrant personal foul.

When my partner and I talked about it after, I thought intentional also.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Adam

Sure you can, that's why fighting only requires the culprit to attempt to punch someone. Actually landing the punch isn't required.

If I thought the player was intentionally trying to trip an opponent and just missed, I'd seriously consider a flagrant T. At minimum it's a T, and I'm waiting until the offense puts up a shot attempt or backs out of a drive before calling it.

You can only withhold the whistle until after the try/goal for technical foul offenses by bench personnel per the NFHS Case Book.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You can only withhold the whistle until after the try/goal for technical foul offenses by bench personnel per the NFHS Case Book.

10.4.1 SITUATION F: A1 is driving toward the basket for an apparent goal when
the official, while trailing the play advancing in the direction in which the ball is
being advanced, is cursed by the head coach or bench personnel of Team B. How
should the official handle this situation? RULING: The official shall withhold blowing
the whistle until A1 has either made or missed the shot. The official shall then
sound the whistle and assess the Team B head coach or bench personnel with a
technical foul. If the official judges the act to be flagrant, the offender shall be
ejected. If A’s coach or bench personnel was the offender, the whistle shall be
sounded immediately when the unsporting act occurs. (10-4-1a)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

You can only withhold the whistle until after the try/goal for technical foul offenses by bench personnel per the NFHS Case Book.

It's summer, and I don't have my books handy, but I'm surprised to read "only" above.

I do recall a case where B1 intentionally steps out of bounds, and the guidance is to ignore or delay (I forget which) the violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's summer, and I don't have my books handy, but I'm surprised to read "only" above.

I do recall a case where B1 intentionally steps out of bounds, and the guidance is to ignore or delay (I forget which) the violation.

The case play does not say "only," but Nevada interprets it that way.

I do not.