Case 3.3.6 Sit D

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

You are trying to instill your sense of equity and fairness where the rules don't address it.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, I'm trying to follow the "Intent and Purpose of the Rules..."

Same old argument, right?

Okay, let's talk consequences. Let's say an official did it BayState's way. Team B's sub would have to wait until the next whistle. After anywhere from 1-40 seconds, he gets in, and the game goes on.

Conversely, let's say an official does it Snaq's way. Team B's sub gets in right away, even though it's clearly after the warning horn. The game goes on.

First question: How much objection would you get either way? My best guess is that Coach B is more likely to object for a player not getting in that Coach A would by letting B's team get a sub in under the circumstances. Of course, this is the least of your worries.

Second question: What would your assigner do (WWYAD)? That depends on your assigner. Is he more of a letter-of-the-law guy, or a "fairness" guy?

Third question: If your assigner did indeed disagree with your choice, how much grief would you get? In the grand scheme of things, you'd be asked, "Oh, remember that thing at intermission where you...?" Philosophies would exchange, but ultimately, we're talking about a single sub during an intermission that's not clearly covered under the rules. I say it falls under minutia, and at worst, you'd get a "don't do it again" if your assigner disagrees with your call.