What is the proper penalty and admin?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I agree, 10-5-5.

But, seems odd as if you apply that rule then the bench player can still play in the game, right?

Originally Posted by zm1283

But can you charge the HC directly with the technical AND the player with a flagrant technical for the same infraction? Or would you consider the player leaving the bench in the first place the HC's direct technical and if the player fights, he gets a separate flagrant technical?

Originally Posted by tjones1

Anyone else nervous as to why NV is posting this situation? Ha Ha.

Probably won't be able to sleep tonight.

I stick by my ruling in 10-5-5...seems pretty straight forward. But like I said it appears the bench player can still play in the game.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

10-4-1d,f or g.
You're right, 10-5-5 is for the coach, and it would be a stretch to boot the player when you're only applying the T to the coach.

My first instinct is to hit the player directly (coach indirectly) using 10-4-1d or 10-4-4; making it flagrant based on 4-18 or 4-19-4.

You guys are getting to know me too well.

I believe that this situation highlights a problem with 10-4-5 and the new 10-5-5 and its interpretation along with their associated penalties.

Give new case play 10.5.5 Situation B, which appears on page 4 of the 2010-11 Case Book, a quick read. The stated penalty is a direct T to the HC, 2FTs and the ball for the opponents. No penalty at all for the offending team member!

I believe that the NFHS kicked the heck out of this one. I agree with those of you who posted that a direct T (likely flagrant) to the individual offending team member and an indirect T to the HC, using 10-4-5 as rules support, is the better penalty, but the NFHS doesn't think so.