Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy
I am sorry. That response betrayed a bad attitude that overcame me, the kind of snippy reply I wouldn't find pleasant if others reacted that way.
In the spirit of the enabling fellowship of officiating, let me invite the posting person who, joining admittedly late, to review all the discussion and responses from the beginning of the thread. Then a well-rounded personal interpretation can be formulated based on whatever clarity is gleaned from that review.
|
Sorry if I restated something already mentioned. I was trying not to repeat everything that was already discussed (like the officials should not resume play with 4 in the first place -- obviously).
I agree with the thinking (based on the case play cited) which is that the technical foul should occur immediately when the 5th player enters the court after the others -- not automatically if the officials realize only 4 are playing. Until the 5th player enters the court (not at the same time as the others) I do not see how 10-1-9 has been violated.
I was making the point that it is also not clear to me that 3.1 has been violated because the officials can not say for sure that the team does have five players available. So one other reason (which I didn't think had been mentioned) as to why I would not stop play and call a technical is because I can think of at least one scenario (although unusual) where it would be legal to play with 4 players -- specifically a situation where the 5th player is the only player available and he/she becomes injured/ill during the timeout.
What am I missing?