[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This isn't quite correct. A sub tech has its own category in that summary, and it does not include an indirect for the coach. Bob's right, it should probably have been a sub T with no indirect.

However, I can certainly understand the thought process when the official hears the coach instruct his player to go in. It just "feels" like he ought to get hit with it. I think the intent of the rule is to not punish a coach for something a sub does when he sends him to the table; but this is a bit different than 99.93443% of all sub Ts, in that the coach literally isntructed his player to go break the rule.

That said, rulz iz rulz.

So where is the line drawn between the two (10-2-2 & 10-4-2)?