Don't be a jersey plumber?

[Amesman]

Gotcha on the instructions about leaving to change. I do the same.

So, JRut (and others): If you don't literally see any change taking place but can deduce that it did occur (within the visual confines of the court, that is), it would still be served with a T?

Not being obstinate here. Just looking for the thought process. For most things, I agree: If I don't see it, I can't call it. But this seems different.

(I agree also, btw, that we have to be very, very careful about selectively enforcing rules. Coach A is going to want what Coach B already gets every time.)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Amesman

Gotcha on the instructions about leaving to change. I do the same.

So, JRut (and others): If you don't literally see any change taking place but can deduce that it did occur (within the visual confines of the court, that is), it would still be served with a T?

Not being obstinate here. Just looking for the thought process. For most things, I agree: If I don't see it, I can't call it. But this seems different.

(I agree also, btw, that we have to be very, very careful about selectively enforcing rules. Coach A is going to want what Coach B already gets every time.)

How are you going to penalize something you did not see?

Peace

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

How are you going to penalize something you did not see?

Peace

If you're leading us to the "can't punish what you don't see" answer, I'm concerned about how to penalize verbal unsporting acts (taunting, threats, etc) unless we see the offending person's lips moving. I've never seen language such as, "It is a violation when...and the official sees it". If seeing something is the standard for enforcing a penalty, the criminal justice system (specifically the value of forensic sciences) is about to take a number of steps back.

That said, I feel there are certain things that occur that we don't see but have enough evidence to know what occurred and should be penalized as described by rule as long as we are able to do so within a reasonable time period. This is one of those circumstances where if you know the player didn't leave the visual confines of the court but his/her uniform is in compliance with the rules after the team breaks the huddle, you know what happened. Conversely if a team member changes on the bench during play and you didn't see it, unless there is some unique circumstance that gives you absolute knowledge that he/she didn't leave the visual confines of the court, you shouldn't penalize it.

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

If you're leading us to the "can't punish what you don't see" answer, I'm concerned about how to penalize verbal unsporting acts (taunting, threats, etc) unless we see the offending person's lips moving. I've never seen language such as, "It is a violation when...and the official sees it". If seeing something is the standard for enforcing a penalty, the criminal justice system (specifically the value of forensic sciences) is about to take a number of steps back.

That said, I feel there are certain things that occur that we don't see but have enough evidence to know what occurred and should be penalized as described by rule as long as we are able to do so within a reasonable time period. This is one of those circumstances where if you know the player didn't leave the visual confines of the court but his/her uniform is in compliance with the rules after the team breaks the huddle, you know what happened. Conversely if a team member changes on the bench during play and you didn't see it, unless there is some unique circumstance that gives you absolute knowledge that he/she didn't leave the visual confines of the court, you shouldn't penalize it.

The same principle is used when there are six players participating in the game at the same time. If the officials did not observe (see) six on the court, a technical foul cannot be assessed. That's what he's getting at.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

If you're leading us to the "can't punish what you don't see" answer, I'm concerned about how to penalize verbal unsporting acts (taunting, threats, etc) unless we see the offending person's lips moving. I've never seen language such as, "It is a violation when...and the official sees it". If seeing something is the standard for enforcing a penalty, the criminal justice system (specifically the value of forensic sciences) is about to take a number of steps back.

That said, I feel there are certain things that occur that we don't see but have enough evidence to know what occurred and should be penalized as described by rule as long as we are able to do so within a reasonable time period. This is one of those circumstances where if you know the player didn't leave the visual confines of the court but his/her uniform is in compliance with the rules after the team breaks the huddle, you know what happened. Conversely if a team member changes on the bench during play and you didn't see it, unless there is some unique circumstance that gives you absolute knowledge that he/she didn't leave the visual confines of the court, you shouldn't penalize it.

What if they are a wizard? If I didn't see it I'm not giving the player a T. You'll switch to my view when you call a T for something you didn't see and then learned it never even happened.

On a serious note. You can change jerseys on the court while always having a jersey on. I can think of two ways to do it. Moral of the story: Don't assess a technical to something you never saw.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Dad

What if they are a wizard? If I didn't see it I'm not giving the player a T. You'll switch to my view when you call a T for something you didn't see and then learned it never even happened.

On a serious note. You can change jerseys on the court while always having a jersey on. I can think of two ways to do it. Moral of the story: Don't assess a technical to something you never saw.

And you can take a non-conforming shirt off from under a jersey without removing the jersey . . it may be awkward, but it can be done . . .

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

If you're leading us to the "can't punish what you don't see" answer, I'm concerned about how to penalize verbal unsporting acts (taunting, threats, etc) unless we see the offending person's lips moving. I've never seen language such as, "It is a violation when...and the official sees it". If seeing something is the standard for enforcing a penalty, the criminal justice system (specifically the value of forensic sciences) is about to take a number of steps back.

What does this have to do with the topic we are discussing? Taunting is not always about the words you say, it is often about what you do, like getting in someone's face or your gestures. I have never penalized or would never penalize someone for taunting if all I did was have someone after the fact come to me and say, "Ref, he said something to me." But since that is where you want to go with this, I guess.

I just heard a story the other day from a former coach that some college teams had a fight in the locker room area, do you penalize a fight that you never saw in any way? I would hope not considering you have no idea who threw a punch or who said anything in the actions of such an event? Maybe you would, I do not know.

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

That said, I feel there are certain things that occur that we don't see but have enough evidence to know what occurred and should be penalized as described by rule as long as we are able to do so within a reasonable time period. This is one of those circumstances where if you know the player didn't leave the visual confines of the court but his/her uniform is in compliance with the rules after the team breaks the huddle, you know what happened. Conversely if a team member changes on the bench during play and you didn't see it, unless there is some unique circumstance that gives you absolute knowledge that he/she didn't leave the visual confines of the court, you shouldn't penalize it.

Again, if you know something happen you can do what you want. But as I said, I make it very clear before any such action takes place what they are to do and even tell the coaches and players it is a T if they take off their jersey in the game. Almost always we are the ones directing them to change their jersey. I have even been in games where the lights are out before the game for the introductions and we are in relative darkness when this happen so not sure I am watching every movement of players to know what they are doing. But again, if this is your thing, knock yourself out.

Peace

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What does this have to do with the topic we are discussing? Taunting is not always about the words you say, it is often about what you do, like getting in someone's face or your gestures. I have never penalized or would never penalize someone for taunting if all I did was have someone after the fact come to me and say, "Ref, he said something to me." But since that is where you want to go with this, I guess.

I just heard a story the other day from a former coach that some college teams had a fight in the locker room area, do you penalize a fight that you never saw in any way? I would hope not considering you have no idea who threw a punch or who said anything in the actions of such an event? Maybe you would, I do not know.



Again, if you know something happen you can do what you want. But as I said, I make it very clear before any such action takes place what they are to do and even tell the coaches and players it is a T if they take off their jersey in the game. Almost always we are the ones directing them to change their jersey. I have even been in games where the lights are out before the game for the introductions and we are in relative darkness when this happen so not sure I am watching every movement of players to know what they are doing. But again, if this is your thing, knock yourself out.

Peace

Regarding the issue of verbal taunting, I was thinking about a situation in which an individual says something with his back to you and you can't see his face to say you "saw" him say anything. For example on a breakaway the defender hustles back and blocks the layup attempt. He then follows it with a "don't bring that sh*& in here MF" but was facing away from you when he said it...can you punish that without seeing his lips move to verify it was him? I would, but because I'm confident of which player said it. The context makes sense. Different situation but same language used with two players of the opposing team standing next to each and this is said jokingly, however you can't see which one of them said it...do you penalize that? I don't because I don't have enough information to know who said what, but I do step in and give both players a heads up that they need to watch the language.

Coming back to the jersey issue, I agree with you on preventative officiating. I'm not, however, going to pass on the T just because I can't directly see the jersey removed because a team constructs a temporary dressing room in the form a huddle or by holding up towels after I've told the coach the player needs leave the visual confines of the playing area as removing the uniform on the bench area will result in a technical foul.

I'm not making a judgement or telling people what to look for or how to deal with this or any other issue. My point was simply that you can penalize things you don't directly see. There is also value in Dad's point of being careful about penalizing things you don't see, but the reality is that we have 4 other senses and the power of reasoning that should guide us.

PS: Dad, you may be correct that a person can remove one jersey after putting another on, but the infraction resulting in a technical foul is "removing the jersey", not for being without a jersey at all. As the word "the" is used in the rule and is a definite article, we have to determine which jersey the rule is considering. The most logical answer is that it refers to the jersey the player is wearing to start the game, and therefore removing that jersey regardless of how many other uniform articles are in place is an infraction. The intent of the rule was to have team members change in the dressing/locker room, which was addressed by the AR published when this became a rule but is not currently included in the current ARs. If I don't see a player leave the court and I don't see him wearing the jersey he had on before going into a team huddle, the conclusion I'm going to make is that he took it off.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

If I don't see a player leave the court and I don't see him wearing the jersey he had on before going into a team huddle, the conclusion I'm going to make is that he took it off.

We all choose our hills to die on. But this one seems a very strange choice to me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

Coming back to the jersey issue, I agree with you on preventative officiating. I'm not, however, going to pass on the T just because I can't directly see the jersey removed because a team constructs a temporary dressing room in the form a huddle or by holding up towels after I've told the coach the player needs leave the visual confines of the playing area as removing the uniform on the bench area will result in a technical foul.

OK. How are you going to penalize something you clearly did not see? Are you going to take the word of the opponent? If you tell the team to send the player to the locker room, why would you need to worry about towels being held up?

Forgive me but what you are saying is perplexing to me when you can make a big enough deal about this where they will listen to you. I literally tell the coaches before I tell them to remove something, "First of all you need to have him do this in the locker room, but he needs to take that (undershirt/jersey) off now, but make sure he goes to the locker room and through those doors......"

I have literally never had a problem with anyone when I make it clear and tell them that the penalty is a technical foul. Why would I care if I did not see where they take the jersey off if I am not following them into the locker room?

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

I'm not making a judgement or telling people what to look for or how to deal with this or any other issue. My point was simply that you can penalize things you don't directly see. There is also value in Dad's point of being careful about penalizing things you don't see, but the reality is that we have 4 other senses and the power of reasoning that should guide us.

If you say so. But to me this is looking for trouble.

Peace

[BoomerSooner]

I'm not choosing a "hill to die on" over this, nor do I make it a habit of "looking for trouble". I hate issuing technical fouls over anything that most would agree is not a direct result of something game related (changing a jersey, scorebook changes, etc), but that is the job.

I don't want to belabor this issue, so I'll ask how you would handle this situation and acquiesce to the consensus opinion.

Player A12 has blood on his jersey and I direct him to leave the game. I walk with him to his bench area and say "Number 12 has blood on his jersey and by rule needs to have it cleaned or changed. If he changes his jersey, he needs to go someplace where he can't be seen from the court or a technical foul will be called. Also if he has to change jersey number, he'll need to report that to the scorer but there is no penalty for changing the book. Will you send a sub to the table so we can get going again?"

The coach replies, "Can I use a timeout to keep him in the game?"

I reply, "Yes, but he will need to be ready by the end of the timeout and remember if he's going to change jerseys he's got to do it where he can't be seen from the court. If he isn't going to make it back in time, you'll need to have a sub at the table at the 15 second warning."

The coach calls the timeout. He then has the entire team stand up and form a tight semi-circle around A12 who is sitting on the bench. I can't see A12, but I am in a position to see if anyone has left the bench area. The only movement I observe is a trainer leave and return with a jersey. As the time out ends I see A12 stand from the bench and approach the scorer's table to inform them that he will be wearing number 22 for the remainder of the game.

At no time was I able to directly observe A12 remove his jersey, but I know with certainty that he is no longer wearing the same jersey as he was before the timeout and that he did not leave the bench area during the timeout. I instructed the coach on the rule when I initially directed A12 to leave the game, I reminded him of the rule when he asked about using a timeout and he determined that his solution was appropriate because I couldn't see it. Do I agree and pass on it or do I issue a technical foul?

Please note the issue isn't whether or not I'm looking for trouble, but whether or not I should call a technical foul for something I didn't directly observe even if I know with absolute certainty what happened, and that it happened despite the coach having been given clear and fair instructions on the rule and penalty. Also, please don't comment that I could merely turn my back to the bench or have gone to get some water and would have no idea whether or not A12 left or that I could have prevented this by running over and giving a third warning to the coach.