Thu Jan 14, 2010, 04:14pm
|
|
M.A.S.H.
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,030
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
This isn't quite correct. A sub tech has its own category in that summary, and it does not include an indirect for the coach. Bob's right, it should probably have been a sub T with no indirect.
However, I can certainly understand the thought process when the official hears the coach instruct his player to go in. It just "feels" like he ought to get hit with it. I think the intent of the rule is to not punish a coach for something a sub does when he sends him to the table; but this is a bit different than 99.93443% of all sub Ts, in that the coach literally isntructed his player to go break the rule.
That said, rulz iz rulz.
|
So where is the line drawn between the two (10-2-2 & 10-4-2)?
|
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
