HS uniform

[LRZ]

I suggest that a "slightly different" shade of blue is not illegal under 3-4-1 and that, consistent with the intent and purpose of the rules, the caseplay modifies the "illegal uniform" idea. Is "slightly different blue" the equivalent of "trim"? If not, then the JV jersey in the case play is illegal and has violated the rules. But the case play says the jersey is legal.

Examples of illegal uniforms--generally applicable to all team members--in the case book are very different than a slight difference in hue.

Suppose a player forgot his blue jersey but had a green one. Are you going to let him play at the cost of a T, because it's an "illegal uniform" and not "illegal equipment"?

Unless there is an old case play, no longer in the book, to the contrary, this is how I would argue to the "can't play" officials.

[bob jenkins]

[QUOTE=LRZ;1041052]I suggest that a "slightly different" shade of blue is not illegal under 3-4-1 and that, consistent with the intent and purpose of the rules, the caseplay modifies the "illegal uniform" idea./QUOTE]

Similar to the "undershirt much match the jersey" rule -- how exact do we want to be.

I often say that when I was in kindergarten, I only had the box of 8 crayola crayons, not the box of 64 with the sharpener on the side. So, I only know blue, black, green red, yellow, orange, brown, white and not sky blue, baby blue, light blue, carolina blue, honolulu blue.... So, that's the (general) criteria I use.

And, in the OP -- it might also depend on how much the Soph plays in the V game -- if it's in a mop-up role at the end of the game I'm likely to be more forgiving than if he's the first sub off the bench.

[BillyMac]

And no crying in baseball.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... I only know blue, black, green, red, yellow, orange, brown, white ...

Real colors are only one syllable.

[SNIPERBBB]

[QUOTE=bob jenkins;1041053]

Originally Posted by LRZ

I suggest that a "slightly different" shade of blue is not illegal under 3-4-1 and that, consistent with the intent and purpose of the rules, the caseplay modifies the "illegal uniform" idea./QUOTE]

Similar to the "undershirt much match the jersey" rule -- how exact do we want to be.

I often say that when I was in kindergarten, I only had the box of 8 crayola crayons, not the box of 64 with the sharpener on the side. So, I only know blue, black, green red, yellow, orange, brown, white and not sky blue, baby blue, light blue, carolina blue, honolulu blue.... So, that's the (general) criteria I use.

And, in the OP -- it might also depend on how much the Soph plays in the V game -- if it's in a mop-up role at the end of the game I'm likely to be more forgiving than if he's the first sub off the bench.

You'd think that a second team player on the V team would be given the proper uniform. That's the common practice around here. Rarely see a JV uniform with the V team but the opposite is common.

[JRutledge]

So we are going to penalize the school because a jersey of the exact same color does not fit, might have been damaged, or they could not afford extra jerseys to hand out to all their kids? Nope. Let them play and move on.

Same with the undershirt, if the jersey is black, I am not going to expect everything to match exactly to that black of the jersey. Hell they can wash something and it will fade. It is not that serious people. What is the spirit of the rule?

Peace

[SNIPERBBB]

Don't think anyone is saying to charge a T here. The OP was asking whether the players could play at all.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is the correct response by rule. If the torso of a player's jersey is not the "same single solid color" as those of the other teammates, then the rule has been infringed and the proper penalty is to be assessed. As noted above, that is simply a direct technical foul to the head coach of the team. The penalty does not prevent the individual from participating in the contest.

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Don't think anyone is saying to charge a T here. The OP was asking whether the players could play at all.

See above.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is the correct response by rule ...

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Don't think anyone is saying to charge a T here. The OP was asking whether the players could play at all.

Originally Posted by SC Official

See above.

Nevadaref's statement includes "by rule" that most likely means "on a written test".

We all know that one doesn't officiate a real basketball game by rule 100% of the time.

I've known a few officials who knew every rule and interpretation back and forth, up and down, inside and out, but didn't know it the basketball was stuffed or inflated in a "real" game.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Don't think anyone is saying to charge a T here. The OP was asking whether the players could play at all.

Well anyone can play with an illegal jersey but they have to suffer a technical foul in the process. But since this is an issue of do we give a T, do not split hairs because of some extraordinary situation. As I said, if they are trying to be legal, they are legal, use common sense.

There is a difference between wearing black and having multiple shades of that black or having black and white jersey on the same team and thinking that does not fit the compliance of the rules. Just keep it simple. Often different items are not going to perfectly match.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well anyone can play with an illegal jersey but they have to suffer a technical foul in the process. But since this is an issue of do we give a T...

Huh? When did the focus of this thread shift to should we issue the technical foul?
The OP quite clearly states that the issue is whether the individual should be permitted to play with a jersey of a different hue from his teammates. He specifically asks for thoughts on how to argue that the team member should be able to participate BY RULE.
I was one of the responders who told him that the penalty for infringing the jersey color rule is not that the individual is forbidden from playing, but rather that the head coach receives a direct technical foul. His colleagues who contend that the kid cannot play are completely incorrect and have no rule basis for prohibiting his participation. That is what is under discussion in this particular thread. This is a conversation about what the text of the rules state, not a discussion of one’s philosophy on how to handle uniform issues when they arise in practice. They OP did not inquire about that.

Of course, those folks who always show up and call anyone who mentions a technical foul for uniforms or other administrative reasons over-officious descended upon this thread and espoused their philosophy without bothering to read the actual text written within it. Their need to feel superior to others and knock their responses because they don’t jive with their personal feelings is sad.

So, in short, to anyone writing that someone is advocating a technical foul and that is a poor way to handle this, and blah, blah, blah—-Shut up!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Hell they can wash something and it will fade. It is not that serious people. What is the spirit of the rule?

I've had partners who don't realize that when black pre-wrap is stretched to be used as a headband, it looks more like gray than black, but it's still black.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Similar to the "undershirt much match the jersey" rule -- how exact do we want to be.

Several years ago, during player introductions, my partner and I noted that a visiting starting player wearing a very dark purple road jersey (that we called one syllable “Black”) was wearing a black undershirt, with extremely short sleeves. We both decided to let it go but to mention to the player and coach that said player should get a purple undershirt.

In the second period a visiting substitute takes off his warmup jacket and heads to the table to enter the game. He's wearing a long sleeve black undershirt under his dark purple jersey, the long sleeve black undershirt being much more noticeable (and illegal) than the starter wearing an extremely short sleeve black undershirt.

This quote immediately came to mind:"No good deed goes unpunished." (Oscar Wilde, Irish playwright, poet, and author)

Dark Purple, Black; Potato, Potahto; Tomato, Tomahto.

We let him enter.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by LRZ

I suggest that a "slightly different" shade of blue is not illegal under 3-4-1 and that, consistent with the intent and purpose of the rules, the caseplay modifies the "illegal uniform" idea. Is "slightly different blue" the equivalent of "trim"? If not, then the JV jersey in the case play is illegal and has violated the rules. But the case play says the jersey is legal.

Examples of illegal uniforms--generally applicable to all team members--in the case book are very different than a slight difference in hue.

Suppose a player forgot his blue jersey but had a green one. Are you going to let him play at the cost of a T, because it's an "illegal uniform" and not "illegal equipment"?

Unless there is an old case play, no longer in the book, to the contrary, this is how I would argue to the "can't play" officials.

I'm looking for reasons to let the player play, not trying to find reasons to keep him from playing.

I'm going to tell my partners (and the opposing coach, assuming he even has a problem with it), that I'm making the decision to let the player play and feel free to contact our supervisor, as will I.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LRZ

Suppose a player forgot his blue jersey but had a green one. Are you going to let him play at the cost of a T, because it's an "illegal uniform" and not "illegal equipment"?

Suppose a player forgot his blue jersey but had a white one. Are you going to let him play at the cost of a T, because it's an "illegal uniform" and not "illegal equipment"?