What would you do?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mregor

(quoted personal attack deleted) And you are correct, fighting doesn't need contact and if the player who allegedly was allegedly tripped retaliated and took a swing at the defender on the ground, they both would be charged with fighting as his act caused the opponent to retaliate, regardless if he grabbed his foot or not. Again, that's not the what happened. OP wasn't even sure if there was contact. Without contact, I still have nothing regardless of so called intent. I'd talk to coach and let him handle it.

Years ago I gave a flagrant T to a kid based on what I thought was intent. Still regret it as in hindsight, I'm not 100% sure. Usually the only T's I regret are the ones I don't issue.

(reference to personal shot deleted)

Now if you want to be precise, your reply above contains a generality which should be cleaned up. Not just any act which causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting would get classified by rule as fighting itself, but rather only an unsporting act which causes that retaliation. So if an official did not deem the attempted trip to be unsporting or an actual trip involving contact wasn't ruled flagrant on its own (perhaps the official only charged a normal personal foul or an intentional personal foul), then any fighting retaliation would not cause the original fouler to be automatically DQ'd by rule.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Now if you want to be precise, your reply above contains a generality which should be cleaned up. Not just any act which causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting would get classified by rule as fighting itself, but rather only an unsporting act which causes that retaliation. So if an official did not deem the attempted trip to be unsporting or an actual trip involving contact (perhaps the official only charged a personal foul), then any fighting retaliation would not cause the original fouler to be automatically DQ'd by rule.

Interesting.
B1 swipes at A1's foot and misses (official rules this an unsporting technical foul), A2 retaliates with a punch.

B1 swipes at A1's foot and makes contact (intentional foul), A2 retaliates with a punch.

We only get to toss them both if B1 misses.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Adam

Interesting.
B1 swipes at A1's foot and misses (official rules this an unsporting technical foul), A2 retaliates with a punch.

B1 swipes at A1's foot and makes contact (intentional foul), A2 retaliates with a punch.

We only get to toss them both if B1 misses.

Not sure that is correct...the action leading up to the retaliation can be considered part of the "fight" by rule, I think. Don't have books with me on vacation, but I believe that wording is in there somewhere, isn't it?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

...the action leading up to the retaliation can be considered part of the "fight" by rule, I think. Don't have books with me on vacation, but I believe that wording is in there somewhere, isn't it?

It's there:

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

What? You don't bring your rulebook, casebook, and manual, with you to study on vacations? And you call yourself a basketball official?