Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
I'm just doing a player T, quite frankly, rather than apply the indirect T to the coach. If the situation is unclear, I'm going to err on the side of caution. The case play you referenced earlier applies to a fight, but a fight is sufficiently rare and the penalties are intentionally harsh that I'm not going to apply the case play to any other situation.
|
If the sub Fails to report who he is going in for the case play stands for the proposition that you assume the worst for his team. He failed to report so we are directed to assume A3 was the player coming out. Bench personnel at time of T. I agree fights are rare but I think the play tells us what to do if we don't know who sub was coming in for.
In the other example I just tell the coach somebody, one of A1-5, has to come out because the sub became a player when he legally entered the Court. At that moment one of those became bench personnel. I don't care who, but one needs to sit a tic. It was his player that didn't say who he was subbing for. I don't think a coach would make a big deal out of this. I think he'd take one of them out without an issue.
If you allow A6 to go back out instead of one of the other players I think you are changing the rule saying that he became a player when he entered and the other player became bench personnel. You are saying he becomes a player when one of A1-5 leaves court and only when one of them leaves court do they become bench personnel.
As you said earlier, it's theoretical really.