Quote:
Originally Posted by JugglingReferee
Case (e) implies that simultaneous refers to the substitutes coming off of bench.
So then this demands that simultaneous in (d) could only apply to a corresponding substitute player.
It can then be inferred that a fight on-court and substitutes leaving their bench are not deemed to be simultaneous.
So if my first statement is correct, then Nevada was correct.
Just my 2 cents.
|
I would still consider this as simultaneous since it all happened during the same "Dead Ball" period.