Last Second Bench T

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I've got a player entering without beckoning; not an indirect. I've got 6 players playing; not an indirect. The interp has one for entering without permission, same as my first. Not an indirect. They have the 2nd as unsportsmanlike conduct. This would be an indirect if you still consider this player to be "bench" personnel.

Can we say "team members participating" instead of "players playing"? I think that it describes a more accurate situation, especially when it comes to penalties. How about my original question: Why wouldn't there be a third technical foul charged to Team B for having more than five team members participating simultaneously? Is this microphone working?

[Back In The Saddle]

Perhaps the rules committee wanted to keep some semblance of balance? The infraction took away a chance at three points to win the game. The prescribed penalty provides the opportunity to score four. It's about a wash.

Just my $0.02

[refnrev]

Originally Posted by jdmara

hmmm...Would one of the T's be three shots since they illegally nullified a 3-point attempt? This play is crazy lol

-Josh

____________________________

Don't see how you could give three shots on a T.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by refnrev

____________________________

Don't see how you could give three shots on a T.

I don't either. Just trying to wrap my mind around this situation.

-Josh

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Nevadaref: This interpretation is three years old. How do you keep coming up with these? I'm lucky if I remembered what I had for dinner last night. Now that Jurassic Referee, and ChuckElias, have "left the building", I hope that you decide to stick around a while.

I can't speak for Nevada, but this interp (at least the general outline of it) was relatively easy for me to remember -- we had discussed this play several times over the years with no easy answer. We all wanted "more than one T" but couldn't really find rules support for it. So wehn the FED issued the interp, it was good to see and made an impression.

It's one of the examples used to hint that someone at the FED (or someone who has the ear of the FED) reads this forum.