Article on Rule Changes....

[Macaroo]

I really like 9-3-2, calling a violation instead of a Technical on a player who runs OOB (like to avoid a pick).
This is in line with the "swinging elbows not hitting anyone" violation. It was rarely called because refs were reluctant to call a T for this.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by zebraman

I've never seen a player pull their jersey off other than for blood or repair or else for the "technical foul" reason. What else is there? Maybe I don't get out enough.

Z

I know they put this rule in in volleyball a couple of years ago. Girls were coming into the gym in their street clothes and just sort of changing right there. They'd have their shorts under their jeans, pull off their jeans, take off whatever top they were wearing and then pull their team jersey or t-shirt on. And I've seen girls at basketball games, when they're wearing those jerseys that are white on one side and colored on the other, strip off their jerseys, turn them inside out and put them back on. I expect there were some parents of some boys who thought this might be a bit much for teen-agers to handle. I know it makes my teen-age son uncomfortable. I'd be surprised if this rule wasn't to address this issue, at least a little.

[mj]

Originally posted by rainmaker

I know they put this rule in in volleyball a couple of years ago. Girls were coming into the gym in their street clothes and just sort of changing right there. They'd have their shorts under their jeans, pull off their jeans, take off whatever top they were wearing and then pull their team jersey or t-shirt on. And I've seen girls at basketball games, when they're wearing those jerseys that are white on one side and colored on the other, strip off their jerseys, turn them inside out and put them back on. I expect there were some parents of some boys who thought this might be a bit much for teen-agers to handle. I know it makes my teen-age son uncomfortable. I'd be surprised if this rule wasn't to address this issue, at least a little.

Rainmaker, I don't think that is why they want to make this a technical foul. The article says they are removing the jersey out of frustration.

Besides, in a game by the time we get on the court the teams should be in warmups not changing into their uniforms...

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by mj


Rainmaker, I don't think that is why they want to make this a technical foul. The article says they are removing the jersey out of frustration.

Besides, in a game by the time we get on the court the teams should be in warmups not changing into their uniforms...

The NF better clear up this situation or specify as to what they are talking about. I for one have never seen a player or can recall a player doing this. They need to make this clearer to those that are unaware of the practice. There will be officials that are thinking of this from Juulie's point of view if no other information is given.

Peace

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by JRutledge

The NF better clear up this situation or specify as to what they are talking about. I for one have never seen a player or can recall a player doing this. They need to make this clearer to those that are unaware of the practice. There will be officials that are thinking of this from Juulie's point of view if no other information is given.

Peace

I agree. When I first saw this I thought the intent was clear - to prevent players from yanking off their jersey in frustration. After reading Juulie's post I can now see how some people might want to start a rec/AAU game with 10 T's for players adjusting themselves in public simply because there's no locker room available.

[icallfouls]

Originally posted by Dan_ref

I agree. When I first saw this I thought the intent was clear - to prevent players from yanking off their jersey in frustration. After reading Juulie's post I can now see how some people might want to start a rec/AAU game with 10 T's for players adjusting themselves in public simply because there's no locker room available.

I know that there are many "by the book" referees out there that will miss the intent and spirit of the rule. I forget which rule book I saw it in, but as officials we are supposed to use a certain amount of common sense. The intent of the rule is to eliminate the "Dennis Rodman"-like act of yanking off a jersey to show dissatisfaction with a call/no-call, or bringing attention to themselves, similar to when players used to do chin ups on the rim or slapping the backboard after a dunk. Not sure about everyone, but I can tell the difference between changing jerseys so that they are wearing the reversible correctly, or if the blood rule is in use versus the player that yanks their jersey out to show disgust or disagreement.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by icallfouls

I know that there are many "by the book" referees out there that will miss the intent and spirit of the rule. I forget which rule book I saw it in, but as officials we are supposed to use a certain amount of common sense. The intent of the rule is to eliminate the "Dennis Rodman"-like act of yanking off a jersey to show dissatisfaction with a call/no-call, or bringing attention to themselves, similar to when players used to do chin ups on the rim or slapping the backboard after a dunk. Not sure about everyone, but I can tell the difference between changing jerseys so that they are wearing the reversible correctly, or if the blood rule is in use versus the player that yanks their jersey out to show disgust or disagreement.

This is why there has to be clarification. I am not saying I cannot tell the difference between the acts. I think it is not clear outside of this article that this was then reason the rule was created. If you do not read the article (which many officials will not do), it will sound like any changing of a jersey is the reason they created this rule. What Dennis Rodman did would have gotten a T without this rule by me and many other officials.

Peace

[Ref in PA]

Will this mean that moving screen fouls by the offense will be non shooting fouls? I assume so.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Ref in PA
Will this mean that moving screen fouls by the offense will be non shooting fouls? I assume so.

Illegal screens will apply. I am not sure of moving screens. I am not sure what is illegal about a moving screen.

Peace

[icallfouls]

Originally posted by JRutledge

This is why there has to be clarification. I am not saying I cannot tell the difference between the acts. I think it is not clear outside of this article that this was then reason the rule was created. If you do not read the article (which many officials will not do), it will sound like any changing of a jersey is the reason they created this rule. What Dennis Rodman did would have gotten a T without this rule by me and many other officials.

Peace

JRut,

We are in agreement. It just seems that in today's world, everyone wants things spelled out perfectly so they can say "its right here in the book." Next thing you know someone finds a loophole, it gets closed the next year, then there is another, then another, etc. Unfortunately, for some, basketball relies on good judgement. For the most part the rules are only meant to serve as a guideline not as black and white.

Perhaps rewording the change would be more appropriate. Something that refers to unsporting acts rather than a line by line of what is or isn't allowed. In reading the article, it is designed to address the unsporting acts of players pulling the jerseys out as a matter of disgust rather than "so and so was just changing their jersey." Like I said, I am in agreement with the unsporting nature of the action.

I know other people have expressed concerns from a modesty point of view, but these concerns should be handled by the schools not by the officials or the NFHS. Most schools have a code of conduct that the students sign, let them handle it.

[Edited by icallfouls on May 3rd, 2005 at 04:33 PM]

[rainmaker]

My point was that in volleyball, they WANTED the rule because of girls taking off their jerseys to change sides. It applies specifically to blood situations, and to before and after the match when girls might be changing to or from street clothes. Any basketball official who has done volleyball, and then sees girls OR boys changing in the gym, might not want to stick the kids, but might believe that this is what the Rules Committee was addressing. This official (me, for instance) might feel compelled to T kids up for this, even though it would go against the better judgment. If it's only for a kid yanking a jersey off in frustration at a call, it better say that in the rule change proper.

[RookieDude]

Rule 3-4-15 prohibits a team member from removing his or her uniform within the confines of the playing area.

Hmmmmm,
you want gray area?
How about the player that untucks his shirt in frustration as he walks to the bench after being called for his 5th foul?
Did he "remove his uniform"?

How about the player that pulls his shirt up and bites the tail end of it...exposing chest, tummy and a whole lot of skin as he walks to the bench in frustration?

Or the player that untucks his shirt and pulls it over his head in frustration?

I know I would handle some of these in a case by case basis...using common sense...and not needing a new rule to tell me when to whack um'. Although now it looks as if we are mandated by the NFHS to call the T for shirt "removal".

As a side note:
My philosophy is still the same...it's not what the player necessarily says that will earn them the T...it's HOW they said it, it's their ACTIONS that usually gets them whacked.

[tmp44]

Originally posted by Macaroo
I really like 9-3-2, calling a violation instead of a Technical on a player who runs OOB (like to avoid a pick).
This is in line with the "swinging elbows not hitting anyone" violation. It was rarely called because refs were reluctant to call a T for this.

Here is what I don't understand about this new rule though....

Sitch--Team A on offense, A2 is passing to A1 as A1 is coming off of a screen in the lane. B1, to avoid the screen, runs OOB by let's say, 3 feet. B1 then comes back in-bounds and:

A) steals the ball as the pass is going to A1, whom he was guarding;

B) A1 receives the pass and B1 continues to guard A1 after returning in-bounds.

What does everyone have in these two sitches?

[jritchie]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Here is what I don't understand about this new rule though....

Sitch--Team A on offense, A2 is passing to A1 as A1 is coming off of a screen in the lane. B1, to avoid the screen, runs OOB by let's say, 3 feet. B1 then comes back in-bounds and:

A) steals the ball as the pass is going to A1, whom he was guarding;

B) A1 receives the pass and B1 continues to guard A1 after returning in-bounds.

What does everyone have in these two sitches? [/B][/QUOTE]


Situation A, probably have to call a violation for running out of bounds, espcecially if it helped them to get in position for the steal!!!!

situation b, myself i probably have nothing...but they still want us to call it, even though no advantage was gained...this is the part i don't see.... if no advantage gained on the play i don't think we need to worry about it!!

[tmp44]

Originally posted by jritchie

Here is what I don't understand about this new rule though....

Sitch--Team A on offense, A2 is passing to A1 as A1 is coming off of a screen in the lane. B1, to avoid the screen, runs OOB by let's say, 3 feet. B1 then comes back in-bounds and:

A) steals the ball as the pass is going to A1, whom he was guarding;

B) A1 receives the pass and B1 continues to guard A1 after returning in-bounds.

What does everyone have in these two sitches? [/B][/QUOTE]


Situation A, probably have to call a violation for running out of bounds, espcecially if it helped them to get in position for the steal!!!!

situation b, myself i probably have nothing...but they still want us to call it, even though no advantage was gained...this is the part i don't see.... if no advantage gained on the play i don't think we need to worry about it!!

[/B][/QUOTE]

Jritch,

That's exactly what I was thinking. In sitch B, the rule seems to mandate a violation called. Because of such, I could definitely see an official calling the violation on Team B as A1 is blowing by B1 to the hoop for a layup....I'd like to see that one explained to a coach.