Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins
Do you think that clause applies to your play?
|
No I don't think it should apply in my situation, however the prior statement in the comment doesn't give any leeway ("the uniform rule is intended to be applied in
all situations").
In my post, I was using an extreme example to support the position that removing the jersey isn't always in all cases an unsporting act. This example was more sufficiently invalidated by So Cal Lurker's point that the player didn't remove the jersey, however I countered by suggesting that A1 could remove A2's jersey without penalty. This was an outlandish example used to show a loop hole in the rule with the ultimate intention of asking would we rather have players undressing each other or just acknowledge that there are situations where removing one's jersey is not an unsporting act.
I've devised a less extreme example that circumvents So Cal's counter-point and involves a player removing his/her jersey. During a timeout, A1 becomes ill and vomits on A2's jersey. A2 immediately removes his jersey and vacates the area in route to the locker room due to the intense smell causing him to become nauseated. Should A2 be assessed a technical foul?
For the sake of clarity, the entire point of my ramblings is to get to the root issue, which is to determine which of the following statements applies to this situation and what is the best fix?
1. The rule book's intent is that removing one's jersey is by definition an unsporting act in all situations and that no judgement of intent or consideration of the circumstances is required in the assessment of the play or the enforcement of the penalty. The conflict here is with the definition of unsporting.
2. The rule book's intent is to penalize removing one's jersey when it is an unsporting act. The conflict here is whether or not an official is granted the capacity of judge removing the jersey to not be an unsporting act.
3. The rule book's intent is that removing one's jersey should be penalized with technical foul independent of whether the act is unsporting or not. The conflict here is that the rule is found within the section regarding unsporting acts.