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.

Mark, he/she would simply have to remove the jewelry. I am not bring in a sub just because I notice this at this moment.



Huh??

You don't what? I treat them the same as well. Not sure what point you are trying to make here.

Peace

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.

Remove player until illegal equipment is removed! Same as untucked shirt (after warning). Player Gotta Go! Need a replacement Coach!

Pre-game:Coach, are your players properly equipped?
Captains: tell your teammates no jewelry!

Case closed!

Officials need to apply the rules so the players and coaches know what the ruling is. I have noticed that some officials will apply the rule, and some will not. IMO we as officials need to get on the same page and apply the rules of the game whether or not it is a youth 5th grade game or a varsity high school game. By making the call with regard to the rules as they were intended not only teaches the players, but to better educate the coaches who are teaching our youth how to play the game by the rules.

Making up rules does not help our youth to become better players and become more knowledgable in the sports in which they participate. And when it comes to youth sports, I feel that is part of our job as officials, is to educate them by administering the rules of the game in which they are intended.

You are right. I apply the way the rules state it and the way they are applied in my area. We do not remove players from the game that have on jewelry. JR in my opinion not only gave the rule, he also gave the widely accepted practice in my area. That is what I am doing. I am not removing players from the game because the have their shirt out, just like I am not removing players from the game that have on jewelry. You wait until a dead ball and you take action. You do not have to make a big production out of it.

I do not know who you are suggesting is making up rules here? I think the disagreement is what rules apply and what rules do not apply. You can be a rulebook official and apply ever rule to the letter regardless of common sense all you like, but it will not make your partners or the coaches very happy either. If I removed every single player because their shirt came out, I would not only waste a lot of time, I would cause further problems for myself and my partners during that game. Because if I am that picky about that rule, guess what other rules they are going to want me and my partners to call to the letter? ;)

Peace

By what rule are we clearing the lane for the 2nd shot?

Yup, same rule that let's you stop play on a missed FT to make a substitution for the player with the jewelry. And then have to go to an AP. Or, if it's bleeding player, you let them shoot their 2nd FT, and then blow your whistle whether it's made or missed, and ask the coach if he wants to put in a substitute for the bleeding FT shooter or use a TO to keep them in the game. Same logic.

Rut - what I meant is that if I notice a kid wearing jewelry, I wait until the next dead ball and make them take it off. I do the same thing with rubber bands. What I meant by "anywhere else" was that I don't let them wear them around their necks, upper arm or ankles (and yes, I have seen all of these, bizarre as it sounds).

I'm not suggesting throwing a player out, but I would not let a player shoot a free throw if I noticed he or she was wearing jewelry at that time. I would make the player go take it off, then come back and shoot.

If I was in a nasty mood (and that never happens), I might call an indirect on the coach for lying to me before the game that all jewelry was off that team's players.

it says nothing about a player there is a difference.
[/B][/QUOTE]

By what rule are we clearing the lane for the 2nd shot? [/B][/QUOTE]

I would ask the same question. In NF I dont recall any play in the case book (Where is MTD and the briefcase?) or any interpretation that allows you to shoot a shot other than a T or intentional where you dont line up. (maybe there is one on uniforms but I dont recall it)

Then in this you are giving the OPPONENT the Ball whether or not it is made or missed. WHY?

The ball by rule is not to become dead after shot. Now we are killing alive ball and awarding it to the other team. Now you are penalizing the Offense by taking the ball away if shooter missed and could have rebound.

There is no provision of the rules that allows you to award the ball to the Opponent because of a jewelry issue.

Lets use some common sense here

1) do it the way it was handled
2) If it will take too long and delay the game ask the coach if they want a time out or if he wants to sub...
3) If she wants to keep them in replace her...

This is all that I am suggesting. That is why I agreed with JR. Just let them take it out and move on. Unless they give you a problem, I would never remove them from the game because they had an earring on.

Peace

By what rule are we clearing the lane for the 2nd shot? [/B][/QUOTE]

I would ask the same question. In NF I dont recall any play in the case book (Where is MTD and the briefcase?) or any interpretation that allows you to shoot a shot other than a T or intentional where you dont line up. (maybe there is one on uniforms but I dont recall it)

[/B][/QUOTE]

The only two you're missing, that I can think of, is a correctable error and with no time on the clock.

That is exactly my point!

Do we not need to call the game to the letter? We need to be on the same page as officials as to what the call should be! And the call is clearly stated in the rules book as Bob stated.

As far as making up rules, I was refering to the comment about clearing the lane and allowing the player who is INELIGIBLE to shoot FT's. Make them remove the earings, maybe, but then you talk about wasting time! Is that not taking time from the game?

Coaches and players were already fore-warned to remove all jewelry.

Is a T warranted to the coach because his/her players were not properly equipped? Or improperly equipped?

No we don't want to call the game to the letter of the rules...we need to call it to the intent of the rules and take into account advantage/disadvantage.... I don't agree that it is clearly stated in the rules as there are some of us who disagree and have quoted the case book ruling that supports our position..

That is exactly my point!

Do we not need to call the game to the letter? We need to be on the same page as officials as to what the call should be! And the call is clearly stated in the rules book as Bob stated.

[/B][/QUOTE]And our point is that we think that Bob's rule citation is not applicable at all to this particular situation. We're saying that's it's covered explicitily under a different rule. Therein lies the rub. We can't be on the same page if we're using different pages(of the rule book).

NCAA A.R.18 Player is found to be wearing jewelry. RULING. the game shall be stopped immediately or be required to leave the game etc...

Again, talking about delaying the game! What is easier? Delaying the game to benefit the offender, or the purpose of the rule?

Someone mentioned advantage or disadvantage. Who is gaining an advantage here? Obviously the offender has the advantage if you allow time to remove jewelry which should have not been present in the first place.

JMO

Whoooaaa!
 

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!

Re: Whoooaaa!
 

Um, Tony, I'm not sure where you got 2-4-5 from or who mentioned it. Also, Bob is saying that you <b>don't</b> 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--<i>"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)"</i>. Now, after reading that, how can you let a player <b>participate</b> 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]

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

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.

Re: Re: Whoooaaa!
 

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.

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

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

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

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.