Last Second Bench T

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Great citation. I'm curious. Why wouldn't there be a third technical foul charged to Team B for having more than five team members participating simultaneously?

I realize this would be piling on, but - could the B Head Coach get an indirect T as the player's T's pertain to Bench Personnel?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by grunewar

I realize this would be piling on, but - could the B Head Coach get an indirect T as the player's T's pertain to Bench Personnel?

That player is bench personnel, so the T's would also be indirects. But, of course, there are no shots for those.

[Adam]

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.

[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