On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:00, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> However, the punishment isn't being "replaced." I would be >> simultaneously punished with two TIME OUTs. > > Since "two simultaneous time-outs" is still an identical net > punishment, this argument has no bearing. Without extending this > to be a precedent on R101 in cases where the net punishment would > actually be additive, I opine AFFIRM. > > -G.
But they're not simultaneous, because the second one won't take effect until this appeals panel makes its judgement whereas the first took effect when the last appeals panel made its judgement. The separation is multiple days.
