Quote:
Originally posted by BktBallRef
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? [/B]
|
Of course I know where you're coming from,Tony--common sense.I'd also bet that you'd never(sorry,J.Dallas Shirley)
use CB3.4.15 either in a game.You'd sweetly whisper in the FT shooter's ear-"pull up yo pants and tuck yo freakin' shirt in,or I'll put yo sorry a$$ on the pine"-just like I would.I really can't imagine a player refusing to do so when asked to so nicely.I'd do the same thing as you with an earring,too-tell him/her to unload the damn things,and then just shoot the ft's after they do so.
However,from a straight rulebook stand point,I think that they are directing us to handle the 2 cases differently.Why?-I dunno!