|
Thanks for pointing out yet another discrepency in the NF rules. If a "bench personnel" enters the court without permission, the coach gets an indirect T, but if a "substitute" enters without reporting (or without being beckoned), the coach does not get the indirect T. However, if bench personnel do not become substitutes until they report, then any person entering the game without reporting would still be bench personnel - so how could a substitute enter without reporting? By definition, it would be impossible.
I would venture that if you asked the NF rules committee (and, believe me, I would never presume to try to anticipate what they would say, mostly because I am sane), they would probably tell you that the part of the rule that penalizes bench personnel for entering without reporting was meant to penalize that player and their coach for someone coming off the bench in a fight, or for some similar reason, not because they didn't properly report.
I guess the reasoning for the difference in the direct and indirect is that there is expectation of control by a coach over someone who is sitting on the bench, but there is not that degree of expectation of control over someone who is kneeling at the table and comes in before being beckoned. As I said, I "guess" that's the reason.
Personally, I think it would be a good idea to give the coach an indirect on all technical fouls his team gets regardless of reason or situation. I feel a coach is always directly responsible for the actions and behavior of his players. If you think this would result in a rash of coach ejections, you're right. At least, it would for a while, until coaches would realize they would then have to enforce discipline and correct behavior of their players in order for the coaches to stay in games.
And wouldn't that be nice!
|