Quote:
Originally Posted by tjones1
I agree, 10-5-5.
But, seems odd as if you apply that rule then the bench player can still play in the game, right?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zm1283
But can you charge the HC directly with the technical AND the player with a flagrant technical for the same infraction? Or would you consider the player leaving the bench in the first place the HC's direct technical and if the player fights, he gets a separate flagrant technical?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjones1
Anyone else nervous as to why NV is posting this situation? Ha Ha.
Probably won't be able to sleep tonight.
I stick by my ruling in 10-5-5...seems pretty straight forward. But like I said it appears the bench player can still play in the game.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
10-4-1d,f or g.
You're right, 10-5-5 is for the coach, and it would be a stretch to boot the player when you're only applying the T to the coach.
My first instinct is to hit the player directly (coach indirectly) using 10-4-1d or 10-4-4; making it flagrant based on 4-18 or 4-19-4.
|
You guys are getting to know me too well.
I believe that this situation highlights a problem with 10-4-5 and the new 10-5-5 and its interpretation along with their associated penalties.
Give new case play 10.5.5 Situation B, which appears on page 4 of the 2010-11 Case Book, a quick read. The stated penalty is a direct T to the HC, 2FTs and the ball for the opponents. No penalty at all for the offending team member!
I believe that the NFHS kicked the heck out of this one. I agree with those of you who posted that a direct T (likely flagrant) to the individual offending team member and an indirect T to the HC, using 10-4-5 as rules support, is the better penalty, but the NFHS doesn't think so.
