![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
Situation is from the 07-08 interps. This interpretation, in my opinion, is consistent with the wording of the rule, even though I don't care much for the rule. In the current case play 10.1.9, the team does gain an apparent advantage, but this condition is not specified anywhere else. What, specifically, does your book say about this? And why is there yet another NFHS rules publication in the first place?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
Quote:
![]() ![]() |
|
|||
Would you mind quoting the passage?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
10.3.3 sit B After a lengthy substitution process involving multiple substitutions for both teams, A5 goes to the bench and remains there believing he/she has been replaced. The ball is put in play even though team A has only four players on the court. Team A is bringing the ball into A's front court when the coach of team A realizes they only have four players. the coach yells for A5 to return and he/she sprints directly onto the court and catches up whith the play. Ruling. No technical foul is charged to A5. A5's return to the court was not deceitful, nor did it provide A5 an unfair positioning advantage on the court.
|
|
|||
Quote:
![]() |
|
|||
10.1.9 Sit After time-out if A5 stays on the bench; then comes onto the court during action - T
10.3.2 Sit B - After subs - A5 thinks they were replaced goes to the bench and then comes onto the court during action - No T. |
|
|||
Quote:
You mean 10.3.2, right?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
Quote:
![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
Is this the book for the current year?
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|