Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
R10-S1-A5(c, d, e, and f) are the Rule 10 penalties for any further infractions of R4-S47 after the first one. The similar acts phrase of R10-S1-A5(b) could be possibly be applied to the OP but as I have stated in my second post (Post #13) of this thread, that there are two rules that better cover this situation and situations similar to it, and they are R10-S3-A5(A) and R10-S4-A1.
Failure of an individual(s) to occupy the first lane space(s) after being instructed to do so are infractions of the rules by an individual(s), except when part of the Resuming Play Procedure and the OP is not a RPP situation.
Applying the wrong rule to a situation in a Casebook Play is not something new by the NFHS. R4-47 does not apply to the OP anymore that it applies to 10.1.5 Situation C(b).
MTD, Sr.
|
I don't care how many 10,00 word essays you post to try and obfuscate the
facts, Mark. It just ain't gonna work. Somewhere along the line, you have to come up with something out of the rule/case book that will back you up. And you can't do that because the case book completely contradicts your latest flight of fancy.
The numbering of case book plays corresponds to the rule being referenced. Casebook play 10-1-5SitC(b) relates to rule 10-1-5. Rule 10-1-5 is about
TEAM technical fouls. It's that freaking simple.
The situation described in the original post is the
EXACT same situation that is described in case book play 10-1-5SitC(b). It's also that freaking simple. And casebook play 10.1.5SitC(b) says that it's a team technical foul,
NOT a freaking direct technical foul on the head coach.
And basically what you are saying is that we should completely ignore the rules and do what you advocate. Do you realize how truly ridiculous that concept is?
And I'm saying that anyone who is stoopid enough to do what you advocate
deserves to be doing games at the Podunk, Ohio Middle School with you as their partner. They are at the absolute level of their competency.