AI/Christiana Penalty
- Thread starter soccer07
- Start date
It was on Christiana sideline. AI kid was shoved while already being out of bounds on a late hit. AI kid pushed Christana player back. Then all hell broke loose where Christiana players began going after AI player. AI left their sideline and went to about midfield and stopped. 3 of AI players went past midfield to the Christiana sideline to help their teammate during the chaos.
So the AI player who pushed back and the 3 AI players who went to the sideline to help have been suspended for a total of 4. 8 Christiana players have been suspended because of the 1 who had the late hit and 7 others who went after the AI player who pushed back.
So the AI player who pushed back and the 3 AI players who went to the sideline to help have been suspended for a total of 4. 8 Christiana players have been suspended because of the 1 who had the late hit and 7 others who went after the AI player who pushed back.
"Any player who leaves the team bench area and enters the playing field, court, or mat during a fight or other physical confrontation and is identified by the game officials shall be ejected from the contest. Any player who commits such an offense and is ejected by the game officials shall also be ineligible for the next contest at that level of competition and all contests at any other level of competition in the interim. Additional penalties may be imposed if a player leaving the bench area becomes involved in the altercation."
Like I said AI got away with that one. No complaints about Christiana kids ruling because it was on their sideline but very sketchy about the AI suspension decision. So in any sport this rule is now subject to appeal based upon this ruling. Any other football game with an altercation coach can say he did not cross mid field or the numbers.
Sometimes things happen on a basketball court and a kid comes on the court can now be question. "Oh incident happened on other end of court my kid didn't cross half court or the time lime."
Right is Right, Wrong is Wrong, Rules are rules. IJS.
The powers to be cower to any threat of law suit,, I know I played the lawyer card with them and won,..as I know many others have as well.. DIAA is just some people on a committee but when push comes to a shove they back off and wont go there..
Not taking sides @VoiceofReason247 but look at how it is written. "Any player WHO IS IDENTIFIED BY THE OFFICIALS shall be EJECTED FROM THE GAME".
The game was stopped immediately. Therefore, the rule at that point does not apply as there was no need to eject players from a now non existent game. The rule then goes on to state that if a player is ejected he is subject to further penalty.
No players were ejected, so again, the rule doesnt apply as the game was stopped completely and the rules and penalties thereafter are now void.
This is why there was a committee meeting with numerous individuals representing different entities to come to a decision.
The game is a no contest with the players involved being suspended a game. Based off the rule you stated the committee must have felt the no contest basically took the place of the ejections frkm that rule. And the "additional players who leave the sideline amd become involved in the altercation are subject to further penalties" constitutes those players being suspended.
Seems to me that if their were lawyers present (i have no idea if there were) the suspensions seems to fit the rule stated.
Rules are rules I agree. But if we are taking the rule as is and how it is written, the rule you provided in your example doesnt apply because ZERO players were identified and ejected at that moment and the game was camcelled and ruled a no contest.
The game was stopped immediately. Therefore, the rule at that point does not apply as there was no need to eject players from a now non existent game. The rule then goes on to state that if a player is ejected he is subject to further penalty.
No players were ejected, so again, the rule doesnt apply as the game was stopped completely and the rules and penalties thereafter are now void.
This is why there was a committee meeting with numerous individuals representing different entities to come to a decision.
The game is a no contest with the players involved being suspended a game. Based off the rule you stated the committee must have felt the no contest basically took the place of the ejections frkm that rule. And the "additional players who leave the sideline amd become involved in the altercation are subject to further penalties" constitutes those players being suspended.
Seems to me that if their were lawyers present (i have no idea if there were) the suspensions seems to fit the rule stated.
Rules are rules I agree. But if we are taking the rule as is and how it is written, the rule you provided in your example doesnt apply because ZERO players were identified and ejected at that moment and the game was camcelled and ruled a no contest.
@AllHeart28 understand what to you are trying to say but game is never called immediately because if there may be chance to defuse and proceed that will be taken first. From what you stated. The fight began on Christiana's sideline and from that point penalties and ejects are noted. The side judge on AIs side of the field is to monitor (not required to stop) the other sideline. Once a player steps on the field of play (or court/mat/etc) as written and usually enforced they are ejected. As you said it is noted that they left the sideline but only a couple crossed midfield. If those 4 that crossed were involved additional penalty (usually more than 1 game) may be imposed. That is how it is written, that is how it is told to Head Coaches and ADs to be passed down to assistants and players. As a coach it is taught that HC enters the field and assistants job is to maintain sideline preventing players from getting involved.
I don't disagree with the no contest rule. I just said AI lucked out because they very well could have suspended a majority if not all of their players for going on the field and declared game a forfeit which also meant suspension from following game.
I don't disagree with the no contest rule. I just said AI lucked out because they very well could have suspended a majority if not all of their players for going on the field and declared game a forfeit which also meant suspension from following game.
Oh absolutely further penalties could have been given. I am just trusting the committees decision. As I said, there werr many different representatives from multiple entities at the conference. I am sure they watched the video tape a magnitude of times and dissected exactly what happened.
As outsiders looking in, we only SEE what happened and can speculate while this committee is able to interview all involved and get a good grasp of the whole story and come to a decision. Just one man opinion, and from what i know from the whole thing, I am trusting their decision and believe the penalty of a no contest for the game and the players involved being suspended a further game seems to be fair.
Putting myself in the kids shoes, it would be difficult to stay where I am and not do anything while watching a teammate on the opposing teams sideline getting attacked (perhaps not the best word for it) by multiple players.
Of course it does not make the actions right, but just putting myself in the players shoes where I dont know how I could look at myself in the mirror if I stood and did nothing while a teammate was in the pile of chaos.
I just beliece the rule you stated is more of an individual basis and if the game is continued being played. Since it was a no contest, their is no rule in the rulebook that addresses the next steps. This is why a committee was necessary. Perhaps that committe will add a rule for future contests.
As outsiders looking in, we only SEE what happened and can speculate while this committee is able to interview all involved and get a good grasp of the whole story and come to a decision. Just one man opinion, and from what i know from the whole thing, I am trusting their decision and believe the penalty of a no contest for the game and the players involved being suspended a further game seems to be fair.
Putting myself in the kids shoes, it would be difficult to stay where I am and not do anything while watching a teammate on the opposing teams sideline getting attacked (perhaps not the best word for it) by multiple players.
Of course it does not make the actions right, but just putting myself in the players shoes where I dont know how I could look at myself in the mirror if I stood and did nothing while a teammate was in the pile of chaos.
I just beliece the rule you stated is more of an individual basis and if the game is continued being played. Since it was a no contest, their is no rule in the rulebook that addresses the next steps. This is why a committee was necessary. Perhaps that committe will add a rule for future contests.
@AllHeart28 the rule is the rule seen it enforce on a hard fouls on basketball court and and on field and seen it enforced when game had to be called. Again it’s clear as day and black and white. As an assistant that was my job make sure no enters playing area and as HC I had to get on a couple of assistants for 1 not staying themselves and 2 not maintaining the bench.
I mean we will just agree to disagree at this point.
You believe AI got away with something and something "shady" went down. And I believe that there are individuals who were on the committee that are trustworthy and a proper meeting took place to delegate the penalties.
You believe the rule is "clear as day" and I dont believe it is. If it was clear as day a conference wouldnt have been necessary to come up with a consensus of what transpired and collectively come to a decision of what to do. They would have just goven penalties as the rule states, but there is no such rule. If you take the rule as it is written it does not say anything within that rule if the game is cancelled and no players have been identified to delegate suspensions. Since no players were ejected, the rest of the rule stated is now void. Also, since it states nothing at all about a game being cancelled because of a conflict a meeting had to be held to review the situation which is why i stated that they will probably add a rule that addresses penalities for a cancelled game or perhaps take it on a game by game basis.
You believe AI got away with something and something "shady" went down. And I believe that there are individuals who were on the committee that are trustworthy and a proper meeting took place to delegate the penalties.
You believe the rule is "clear as day" and I dont believe it is. If it was clear as day a conference wouldnt have been necessary to come up with a consensus of what transpired and collectively come to a decision of what to do. They would have just goven penalties as the rule states, but there is no such rule. If you take the rule as it is written it does not say anything within that rule if the game is cancelled and no players have been identified to delegate suspensions. Since no players were ejected, the rest of the rule stated is now void. Also, since it states nothing at all about a game being cancelled because of a conflict a meeting had to be held to review the situation which is why i stated that they will probably add a rule that addresses penalities for a cancelled game or perhaps take it on a game by game basis.
It seems to me and I agree with VOF the rule is if you leave the bench your out but this is a unique situation and a good lawyer can always argue the law and how it is written. In the end I feel a just decision and outcome ensued and to me that is more important than arguing the letter of the law but I also agree with VOR this ruling does open up the argument you can enter the field but not past midfield even though that is not the law as written. Just another case where a judge interprets law the way they see fit and changes law from the bench.. Judges are supposed to enforce laws not change them but that is a whole other discussion for a different place and time lol
Last edited:
You believe the rule is "clear Players identified as ejected would have been in referees report game continued or suspended. Tape will always be review after regardless again on continuing or suspending game to see if any addition player/coach suspension needed to be issued. Protocol incident occurs both sides are required to submit film ruling normally issued by Monday Tuesday the latest. As BB86 others (may or were) involved to sway ruling.
Didn’t say it was shady just they luck out only losing 4 players as a team with championship aspirations.
Didn’t say it was shady just they luck out only losing 4 players as a team with championship aspirations.
