Fight rule

[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.