|
|||
Don't be a jersey plumber?
Search has not found past discussion on this adequately, so given another recent thread's segue into blood on jerseys, etc. ...
Junior needs to change out of a jersey, for whatever reason (blood, wrong type, illegal fashion details, etc.). Officials instruct him to leave (or not enter) game. Time out. Junior is engulfed by teammates. Nobody can see any disrobing, but -- voila! -- Junior is suddenly ready with legal/adequate jersey as timeout ends. No way he left the visual confines of the court, but nobody actually had a visual of him changing. Whaddya have? [Does 10-4-1-h's "within the visual confines of the playing area" mean actually seen within this area, or does it mean reasonable deduction tells you it took place in this area and still must be punished?] Seems this would not be place for an ordinary "don't be a plumber" admonishment but would like to know from the collective wisdom here. |
|
|||
Quote:
I got nothing, lets play ball. There was some discussion awhile back on this, I can't remember the exact threads, but someone mentioned something about a girl wearing the wrong jersey and needing to leave to exchange with a different girl. As long as the coach has control of the situation, I am not going going to get worked up about this.
__________________
"They don't play the game because we show up to officiate it" |
|
|||
First of all if I am having a player remove, change or take off the jersey in any way, I am telling them explicitly that they need to do so completely out of the view of the court. And I will make emphasize this so that they realize it could be a T if done. The reason being is the other coach could see this and know the rule. I do not want to even have an issue that someone can say we did not enforce. I do this all the time when there is an undershirt or some other situation where they have to take off their jersey. It is just preventative officiating. Because most of the time they are not going to do what you just suggested and I do not want to hear it all game that we passed on a very easy rule.
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
I would agree it's best to give instructions to leave, but, at the end of the day, like anything else, if I didn't see it, it didn't happen.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum. It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow. Lonesome Dove |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
"Everyone has a purpose in life, even if it's only to serve as a bad example." "If Opportunity knocks and he's not home, Opportunity waits..." "Don't you have to be stupid somewhere else?" "Not until 4." "The NCAA created this mess, so let them live with it." (JRutledge) |
|
|||
What Exit ???
Good thread for everyone to read, not just plumbers in New Jersey.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) “I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36) |
|
|||
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.) |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
You learn something new everyday ... |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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. Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush |
|
|||
We all choose our hills to die on. But this one seems a very strange choice to me.
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Logo On Jersey | bob jenkins | Basketball | 25 | Sat Nov 16, 2013 04:47pm |
Kids Ref Jersey | RefSouthAlb | Basketball | 27 | Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:32am |
New official NF jersey | Mark Padgett | Basketball | 23 | Tue Oct 02, 2007 07:39pm |
NBA referee jersey | Gwizdek.pl | Basketball | 5 | Sat Apr 15, 2006 08:39pm |
Blood and Jersey Changes | PGCougar | Basketball | 9 | Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:23am |