Quote:
Originally posted by rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by johnny1784
Base your actions of the players intent, right? Was he/she purposely removing their clothing, exposing skin/underwear unappr0prialty and deliberately?.
This is a State's option to utilize a coaching box and so is the mercy rule.
|
It appears as though the T for removing the jersey is not optional. THe wording is quite clear in the comments. The wording of the coaching box and the mercy rule both state clearly that they are optional. So I don't think you can compare.
I'm not saying I agree with this interp. I think it's assinine to make a player walk clear to the locker room to change a bloody jersey. But if they say we have to, then we have to. Intent isn't mentioned except to say that it doesn't matter.
|
You are correct that it isn't an option when undressing within the confines of the playing area, as per NFHS rule 10-3-7h. And you probably thought it was asinine to give a T for leaving the court for unauthorized reasons (now it is a violation).
By removing the player from the game with the bloody shirt and asking that player to change in the dressing room, wouldnt it serve a dignity purpose to all in attendance? You could ignore the new rule and allow any player to undress wherever.
Why do other official's apply an option with Rule 10-2 or Rule 10-3-3 for issuing a "T"? Matter of fact, why do many officials have options on violations, and fouls?
Maybe the answer is advantage/disadvantage, game management or even the term; holds your whistle, see through the entire play.
[Edited by johnny1784 on May 18th, 2005 at 03:10 AM]