Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
+1, and I think you're quite charitable. 
You're looking for a fig leaf for MTD here, and I'm reluctant to snatch it away. But I think we're talking about 2 situations here: in the OP, the proper penalty is a team T.
In the situation you're envisioning, the coach earns his own T before the team T can be assessed -- fair enough, I can picture that, too. If I go over to roust them and he utters magic words, then he'll get his dessert early. And I agree, that would eliminate the need to assess a team T for not filling the lane spaces. But this really amounts to changing the subject, because it's no longer the OP.
Moreover, that's not how I read MTD: he's not saying that there are distinct situations, one where a team T is appropriate and one where a direct on the coach is. He's saying that it's official's judgment whether to assess a team T or a direct on the coach for one and the same act: not filling the lane spaces. And that still seems wrong to me. |
And +1 for the comments above.
Yes, you certainly could have an unsporting "T" on the coach before you assessed the team "T" for delay. And that would negate the necessity of team B having to fill the bottom 2 lane spots, thus also negating the need to assess the delay team "T". But that is a different situation entirely than the one laid out out in the original post.
The situation in the OP is covered definitively by the case play because they are both basically the exact same circumstances.
Note that I always try to look at these types of situations from the view of what my response would be if I had to respond for my association to a complaint about a call like this. And I can forsee such a complaint coming in if the "T" assessed to the head coach meant his disqualification and ejection, with the resultant suspension and fine. In this case, I would have no choice but to respond that a wrong interpretation was made by the calling official.