Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Shirts/pants are covered under R3-4,which is labelled "uniforms".Jewelry is covered under R3-5,which is labelled "team members equipment,apparel",and is composed strictly of safety items.That's why I think that they handle them differently.You don't have the same liability with letting a player play with his/her shirt untucked as you would for allowing someone to play while wearing jewelry.The big difference is that the rules allow a player to play while wearing illegal shirts/shorts,at the cost of a technical foul(R10-3-3),while a player wearing jewelry can never buy their way into a game with a T.We simply don't allow them to play.Casebook play 3.5.5SitA,covering jewelry,is pretty specific.It says "No penalty is involved.A6 simply cannot participate until the illegal items are removed". JMO!
|
Woody, I understand the difference in the rules. But I think the approach is somewhat legalistic and technical. It's obvious from 3.4.15 that the NF does not want a team to gain an advantage by allowing a sub to replace a FT shooter who's shirt is untucked. The same advantage is gained if a FT shooter is removed from the game because of jewelry. An intended advatnage, at that. The fundamental issue is the same, an improperly equipped player.
If 3.4.15 was not in the casebook, we would be required to send the shooter to the bench and bring in the sub. Therefore, 3.4.15 sets a precedent. I feel very comfortable using the same reasoning for a FT shooter wearing jewelry. If I don't use 3.4.15, I'm going to tell the player that she must remove the earring or leave the game, her call. But I'm not bringing a sub in and allowing Team A to gain an intended advantage.
You may not agree with me but do you see where I'm coming from?