FT shooter wearing earrings

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
I've got to be honest. I was with Jurassic on this (remove the jewelry, not the player, and continue the game) until I saw Bob Jenkins response.

Case book plays are very specific - REMOVE THE PLAYER.

Not sure how these plays became related to rule 2-4-5

Rule 2-4-5 ...Prior to each contest, the head coach shall verify that his/her team member's uniforms and equipment are legal and will be worn properly, and that all participants will exhibit proper sporting behavior throughout the contest.

but the case plays are:

2.4.5 Situation A
Before the contest both coaches verify that their teams are legally equipped. In the third quarter A1 is discovered wearing a ring. RULING A1 must leave the game and remove the jewelry and may re-enter the game at the next substitution opportunity, but no penalty is assessed against A1 or the coach.

2.4.5 Situation B
To the referee's pre-game inquiry of coaches regarding all team members being legally equipped and wearing the uniform properly, both coaches responded "Yes." Three minutes into the first quarter, U1 observes A5 with a tongue stud. RULING: When the tongue stud is noticed, A5 must leave the game and may not return until the stud has been removed. There is no technical foul assessed. (3-5-6)

3-5-6 Jewelry shall not be worn.

Avoid the conflict and ensure no jewelry before the game starts, during warm-ups.

Thanks, Bob!

Um, Tony, I'm not sure where you got 2-4-5 from or who mentioned it. Also, Bob is saying that you don't haveta remove the player. Bob is saying that the player can stay in and shoot the FT's wearing the jewelry.

Casebook play 3.5.5SitA(c) is the reference that we've been using--"Substitute A6 is beckoned and enters the court to replace A1. A6 is wearing jewelry--RULING-The items are illegal...and A6 will not be allowed to participate while wearing the items. No penalty is involved. A6 simply cannot participate until the the illegal items are removed(3-5-6)". Now, after reading that, how can you let a player participate in a free throw while wearing jewelry? And aren't the casebook plays that you cited above saying exactly the same thing? In both cases, the player must leave the game? Immediately? Not sticking around to shoot a FT or 2 first before they leave?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 29th, 2004 at 06:19 PM]

[cmathews]

DownTownTonyBrown is correct...by case book citation I agree they should be substituted for....with that said If I can keep that from happening I will, I will just ask them to take off the ring, the rubber band etc...depending on the situation...as for advantage disadvantage, you have a kid on the line to shoot free throws...he may or may not be the best free throw shooter on the team...when you ask for a sub any coach that is paying attention will substitute their best free throw shooter that is on the bench...now that may or may not be an advantage, I will try to maintain status quo if possible....and again it depends on the level of play, in the first situation, I agree whole heartedly with what was done

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by cmathews
DownTownTonyBrown is correct...by case book citation I agree they should be substituted for....with that said If I can keep that from happening I will, I will just ask them to take off the ring, the rubber band etc...depending on the situation...

Aw geeze, now we're into something completely different.

The original argument was whether we can let a player actually shoot FT's with the jewelry on. That's what we've been arguing about. Whether the player has to leave the game or can simply remove the jewelry and stay in is another completely different matter. We already went over this one in an old thread. I'll see if I can find it.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Bob is saying that the player can stay in and shoot the FT's wearing the jewelry.

No, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying, by rule, remove the jewelry, shoot the throws with no one on the line and give the ball to B. Just as someone posted in one of the first few responses.

How it's actually handled may be different, but I did send a JuCo player out of a game earlier this year when I happened to see her tongue stud.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by IAABO_Ref
Under NFHS rules:

You would clear the lane, let her attempt the second free throw, then remover her from the game, and the opposing team would have the ball OOB at a spot if second attempt was no good or an end line throw if second attempt was good.

I can't see any mention anywhere in this post of an official making the player remove the jewelry before the 2nd FT.

[Jurassic Referee]

I knew that we'd gone around on this exact same one before. Found it.

http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...5&pagenumber=1

[Nevadaref]

I wasn't a forum member back in June 2002 when that first discussion happened, so I will chime in now with my opinion.

I favor handling this situation exactly the same as the untucked jersey in 3.4.15, if the FTs are for a personal or an intentional foul. If the FTs are for a T, I send the player out and make a substitute shoot.

This is clearly the fairest way of handling the situation. The player who was fouled attempts the personal foul FTs, so rule 8-2 is not broken, nor is there an possibility of the offender's team gaining an advantage by replacing the player with a better FT shooter, and the player who wore the jewelry receives some punishment. Specifically, his team loses a rebounding opportunity and he must leave the game after the attempt.

The spirit and intent of the rules clearly favor this method as they come down on the side of not allowing a team to gain an advantage by doing something against the rules. There are numerous examples of this in the book, plus some recent rule changes are due to this rationale. (Retaining the endline running priviledge after a foul or violation is noteworthy.) 9.2.11 even states this in the comment.

As for the jewelry as a safety issue, I believe that clearing the lane and removing any chance that another player could come into contact with this player and thus be hurt by the jewelry addresses this situation properly.
I see no realistic chance that the player himself will be injured by the jewelry while attempting the merited free throw, and therefore with the lane cleared, the ball to become dead after the attempt, and no one else around, I believe that the jewelry is not a safety hazard on the FT attempt.

The main point is that the NFHS simply doesn't want a player participating in a situation when CONTACT is possible while wearing jewelry. This could lead to an injury to another participant or the player himself. Therefore, the removal of the jewelry-wearing player following the FT attempt prevents this nicely.

A couple of final comments:
1. A time-out would not allow this player to remain in the game after removing the jewelry. That is only for blood or injury situations.

2. No technical foul should be charged, unless there is patent unsporting conduct.

3. As officials our PRIMARY concern is the safety of the participants. No matter what the consequences, if an official makes a decision in order to protect the safety of a player or players that official has done the right thing in my opinion.

[IAABO_Ref]

Originally posted by IAABO_Ref
That's a player who is entering the game.

4-34-1
A player is one of five team members who are legally on the court at any given time.

In 3-5-5 the team member has not yet become a player because he has not entered the court legally. So if the officials notice the ear rings prior to the ball becoming live then the sub is still a team member and it's not a player. The case where a PLAYER is discovered with jewelry he/she must be removed and must attempt the second free unless injured or ill and so on.

In 3-5-5-A(c) it says nothing about a player there is a difference.