Fight rule

[JugglingReferee]

Case (e) implies that simultaneous refers to the substitutes coming off of bench.

So then this demands that simultaneous in (d) could only apply to a corresponding substitute player.

It can then be inferred that a fight on-court and substitutes leaving their bench are not deemed to be simultaneous.

So if my first statement is correct, then Nevada was correct.

Just my 2 cents.

[stosh]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Case (e) implies that simultaneous refers to the substitutes coming off of bench.

So then this demands that simultaneous in (d) could only apply to a corresponding substitute player.

It can then be inferred that a fight on-court and substitutes leaving their bench are not deemed to be simultaneous.

So if my first statement is correct, then Nevada was correct.

Just my 2 cents.

I would still consider this as simultaneous since it all happened during the same "Dead Ball" period.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by stosh

I would still consider this as simultaneous since it all happened during the same "Dead Ball" period.

But one (and possibly two) of the on-court players was fighting during a live-ball.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

But one (and possibly two) of the on-court players was fighting during a live-ball.

And you don't think this is when the subs came running onto the floor?

By definition, simultaneous fouls occur at approximately the same time, not the exact same time. Six flagrant fouls, all occurring within a few seconds of each other. Sure sounds like approximately the same time to me.

The rules say nothing about player techs being penalized separately from substitute technicals. It makes no difference whatsoever. Sure sounds like simultaneous fouls to me.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

And you don't think this is when the subs came running onto the floor?

By definition, simultaneous fouls occur at approximately the same time, not the exact same time. Six flagrant fouls, all occurring within a few seconds of each other. Sure sounds like approximately the same time to me.

The rules say nothing about player techs being penalized separately from substitute technicals. It makes no difference whatsoever. Sure sounds like simultaneous fouls to me.

I totally agree that simultaneous can be used by logic. I also think a valid opinion is that logic can also say that these are not simultaneous. "Approximately the same time" could mean different thing to different people.

Rather, I would be interested to know your thoughts on the language used and the conclusion in my post #8.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I totally agree that simultaneous can be used by logic. I also think a valid opinion is that logic can also say that these are not simultaneous. "Approximately the same time" could mean different thing to different people.

Rather, I would be interested to know your thoughts on the language used and the conclusion in my post #8.

Forgive me, but my thoughts are that you are completely wrong. It makes no difference whether we're dealing with players or subs. It makes no difference whether some participants are at this end of the floor and others are at the far end. We're talking about timing, not player designation nor location.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Forgive me, but my thoughts are that you are completely wrong. It makes no difference whether we're dealing with players or subs. It makes no difference whether some participants are at this end of the floor and others are at the far end. We're talking about timing, not player designation nor location.

I can accept that you think I'm wrong, although you still didn't tell me how my conclusion in post 8 was incorrect.

[refiator]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Case (e) implies that simultaneous refers to the substitutes coming off of bench.

So then this demands that simultaneous in (d) could only apply to a corresponding substitute player.

It can then be inferred that a fight on-court and substitutes leaving their bench are not deemed to be simultaneous.

So if my first statement is correct, then Nevada was correct.

Just my 2 cents.

This is correct. This is not considered simultaneous. Free throws are warranted.