Something unusual came up yesterday in CYO 6th-grade girls game, which uses women's NCAA rules. The refs (and coaches) didn't notice a girl wearing small earrings until she was at the foul line, attempting her second free throw. They had her remove the earrings, give them to the coach and then attempt the second throw. No timeout was charged. Is this correct, or should the player have been removed from the game for a sub? Would the sub then take the free throws? Or should the coach have been forced to take a timeout to keep the player in?

Would the Fed ruling be the same as NCAA rules?

I would have handled it the same way.
If she said they dont come out, we would tell he she doesnt play with them in, maybe substitutute for her, and continue with appropriate shots

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.

In a 6th grade game I don't know if I'd do it. Taking them off and handing them to the coach would work fine for me.

I would handle it the same way the officials did. IAABO_Ref is correct by the letter of the rule, but at this level I don't know that I would use the letter of the rule.

What's the rule reference for this?

3.4.15 Substitute "jewelry" for "untucked uniform"

I disagree completely. R3-4 refers to uniform violations only. Jewelry is a safety item and is covered in R3-5-6. If it's a safety concern, they aren't allowed to shoot a FT until the jewelry disappears. A better and more appropriate casebook play illustrating this would be 3.5SitB. In that one, you don't let a player to even continue warming up until they remove the jewelry.

That's pre-game during pre-game everyone is bench personal.

3.5.5.A.c
 

3.5.5.A.c covers jewelry specifically, and there is no penalty they just can't compete while attired so to speak, so the officials in the original situation handled it correctly. Since there is no penalty there would be no clearing of the lane, no inbounds by B etc. Just take em out and play on....

[Edited by cmathews on Nov 29th, 2004 at 01:19 PM]

It doesn't matter. The purpose and intent of "safety" rules are to not let any player participate in the game at any point until the safety concern is taken care off. Letting a player shoot a FT under those circumstances is completely contrary to the rule as designed. See 3.5.5SitA(c)then. That refers specifically to jewelry. Note the ruling that says "No penalty is involved. A6 simply <b>cannot participate</b> until the illegal items are removed". As I said before, you're trying to use a completely different rule--R3-4(uniforms)-- to apply for a situation that is covered in a completely different and separate rule-i.e.-R3-5. Uniform concerns and safety concerns are not related in any way, and that's why they are treated separately in the rule book.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Nov 29th, 2004 at 01:34 PM]

I am with JR on this. Just remove the jewelry, then let the game continue after she takes off the earrings.

Peace

2.4.5A and 2.4.5B specify that the player must be removed.

8-2 says that the offended player must attempt the throws (the excpetions -- injury and DQ don't apply here).

3.5.5A treats uniform issues and jewelry the same.

It's not a stretch to treat them the same in 3.4.15

If the jewelry is discovered before the game, make the player remove it.

If the jewelry is discovered as the player enters the game, don't allow him/her in.

If the jewelry is discovered while the player is getting ready for a FT, treat as 3.4.15

If the jewelry is discovered at another time during play, make the player leave.

Bob,

That is all wonderful. I do not have my rulebook right in front of me so this is not based on a quote from the rulebook or casebook.

More than likely this is not going to happen to me at all. I would not allow a player to play with an earring period. I would have noticed this at some point before the game or when they are playing the game.

Secondly, I do not care what the rules states in this situation. I would just have them remove the jewelry before we shoot the FTs or after they shoot the FTs depending on who notices it. Even with jerseys and them not being tucked in, I am not going to remove players because they have them out according to the strict interpretation of the rules. I know I am not removing every kid that puts on a rubber band (which is usually harder to see than an earring) and plays the game. So I know I am not removing a shooter from the game just because they forgot to take out the earring before playing. Now if they refuse to take it out that is another issue. But they would have to take it out before continuing that game. I am not taking them out of the game for that alone. I know you are not removing kids from the game just because they have a rubber band on their wrist and they are shooting a FT. So why would you do anything different with something in their ear, which by rule both are considered jewelry?

Peace

If the jewelry is discovered while the player is getting ready for a FT, treat as 3.4.15

[/B][/QUOTE]Still disagree completely. Rule 3-4 relates to uniforms only, not equipment.You're ignoring the very specific language of 3.5.5SitA(c) that says that a player will <b>not</b> be allowed to <b>participate</b> while wearing jewelry. As a matter of fact, the ruling of that case book play states that twice. It says again that a player "simply cannot participate until the illegal items are removed". Can't get any plainer than that. If shooting a FT isn't "participating", then what is it?

Then why would you let a player shoot a free throw while wearing an earring? Isn't shooting a free throw "playing"?



I don't let kids play with rubber bands on their wrists or anywhere else. Problem solved.

I don't. I treat them the same.