Quote:
Originally Posted by chartrusepengui
Any bench player should know this, BUT, this idiot already did something to get DQ'd. He should receive both penalties allowed by rule. Period. He was responsible for two infractions. It was not one act. Going on the court is a seperate act. Tackling is another. If being disqualified doesn't make it any more true - it certainly doesn't make it any less true and certainly should not be an excuse NOT to enforce the rules that say he should get 2 technicals. We are not out there to give idiots like that a break. We are not deciding an outcome - that responsibility falls on his shoulders alone.
|
First of all, the one thing that never crosses my mind on the court is any sort of concern for "deciding the outcome." Just thought I'd knock that one down quickly.
Now, on to the substance.
DQ'd may just mean he fouled out, so being DQ'd doesn't make in an idiot.
I'm picturing a crime of opportunity here, not a heat-seeking missile, with the offense running very near the sideline. It's a single act, the way I see it; just like a defender reaching across the plane and striking the ball (or thrower) during a throwin. That's two infractions in one action, yet the Fed wants us to penalize one infraction.
Now, that said, the case play we're using does not involve an actual foul, so there is a difference here that easily allows for the 2nd foul that the case play doesn't contain.
I'm coming around, frankly, but I still see the 2nd as a flagrant personal since the ball is live.
Even if I see the knucklhead run onto the court, I'm letting the breakaway play itself out. Offense may get two points plus the T here, or two points plus the T plus the flagrant personal.