The whole rule is COMPLETELY nitty.
It's in the category of "Rules designed to make the ref's job easier and avoid arguments"
rather than "rules that exist to improve the game and make it more fair and fun".
I remember a controversy where a ref warned a player she was about to foul.
Like they were about to shoot the wrong ball or something.
That was considered overstepping their bounds. The ref is supposed
to let someone foul, and then enforce the penalty afterwards.
Not prevent them from fouling and change the course of the match.
So it makes zero sense - if a ref is not supposed to warn someone
about a potential costly screwup, why should I have to warn my opponent?
Especially when doing so changes the outcome of the match and works against me?
I shouldn't be doing the ref's job in the first place, but something
like this should never be the ref or the seated player's job in the first place.
It's the shooter's responsibility to know he's on two.
If he forgets, tough shit for him.
If he remembers, but is dishonest and acts like he wasn't on two,
then tough shit for the ref or TD who must sort it out.
It's absurd, we have this rule where I am forced to actively help my opponent,
and then I can get criticized because I 'timed it wrong' and didn't make sure
that he didn't forget in the time between my inning and his.
Worse, he can lawyer his way out of committing three fouls by using
this 'timeliness' loophole. This is not how three-foul or any rule should work.