New Uniform Rule

[Jurassic Referee]

The new rule says that it's a "T" if a player removes his shirt "within the confines of the playing area".

If a player has blood on his/her shirt, is directed to leave until it's changed, and then changes their bloody shirt for a clean one in their bench area, do you call a "T"?

[JugglingReferee]

Of course not.

The Fed will now have a reason to sell us a rule book for the year after this coming one, to clarify the interpretations.

[tmp44]

JR...I have nothing here. I know that the volleyball guys will talk about the unsporting actions that volleyball put in a few years ago about ppl changing before and after the game w/n the confines of the playing surface, but here I would assume that the NFHS is talking about removing the shirt out of anger, frustration, etc...an actual unsporting act. Plus, I can see this scenario happening:

#33 gets blood on the the jersey.

R: Coach, #33 must be removed from the game, he has blood on the jersey. The shirt has to be cleaned or changed.
C: OK. Jimmy, put this new uniform on right here and check back in.
R: *TWEET* Technical foul, #33 white.
C: But ref, you told me to change the shirt!

BTW..what do you have JR?

[tjones1]

I don't think so. But, there's gotta be something new so we have to go to the rules interp.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by tmp44
JR...I have nothing here. I know that the volleyball guys will talk about the unsporting actions that volleyball put in a few years ago about ppl changing before and after the game w/n the confines of the playing surface, but here I would assume that the NFHS is talking about removing the shirt out of anger, frustration, etc...an actual unsporting act. Plus, I can see this scenario happening:

#33 gets blood on the the jersey.

R: Coach, #33 must be removed from the game, he has blood on the jersey. The shirt has to be cleaned or changed.
C: OK. Jimmy, put this new uniform on right here and check back in.
R: *TWEET* Technical foul, #33 white.
C: But ref, you told me to change the shirt!

BTW..what do you have JR?

The answer is posted in another thread- fresh off of the FED website. It's now supposed to be a "T". Of course, "shirt popping" is supposed to be a "T" now too.

Handle with care.

[Mark Dexter]

Ideally we wouldn't need one, but I hope this pops up on the list of 20 interpretations the NFHS releases before the season starts . . .

[tmp44]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

The answer is posted in another thread- fresh off of the FED website. It's now supposed to be a "T". Of course, "shirt popping" is supposed to be a "T" now too.

Handle with care.

"Fresh off the FED website?" So the FED has specifically instructed to call the "T" for changing the shirt?

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by tmp44


"Fresh off the FED website?" So the FED has specifically instructed to call the "T" for changing the shirt?

YES!!

Peace

[tmp44]

Originally posted by JRutledge

YES!!

Peace

My bad Rut. I posted my question before I read the thread on the comments. Great job on the posts!

EDIT: Let me ask this then as a follow-up. Since A1 has now been removed from the game for blood, and changes his shirt resulting in the T, do we have a T on the player as well as an indirect on the coach since he's now not a player in the game?

[Edited by tmp44 on May 11th, 2005 at 10:47 AM]

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by tmp44

My bad Rut. I posted my question before I read the thread on the comments. Great job on the posts!

EDIT: Let me ask this then as a follow-up. Since A1 has now been removed from the game for blood, and changes his shirt resulting in the T, do we have a T on the player as well as an indirect on the coach since he's now not a player in the game?

[Edited by tmp44 on May 11th, 2005 at 10:47 AM]

It was just simple cut and paste, I did nothing special.

That is a very good question. Not something I thought about. Maybe it would be if they did so after being removed from the game. I bet this will be one of these things that the rules committee did not think though first.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by JRutledge

YES!!

Peace

All I can say is WOW!! This seems like an overly officious rule. If we know there is blood on the jersey, why interfere with making a player legal to play. Guess we might now see the "girl-style" shirt change....slip the new one one first...slide the old one off underneath. That player always has a jersey on.

[truerookie]

rules committee clearly states, they do not find it unreasonable for a player to return to the dressing room to change jersey in the case of having blood on the uniform. All other is fair game.

[johnny1784]

Originally posted by truerookie
rules committee clearly states, they do not find it unreasonable for a player to return to the dressing room to change jersey in the case of having blood on the uniform. All other is fair game.

I agree with yours and JRutledge replies. I just do not understand why so many basketball official's can not comprehend the NFHS rule book and why do so many of us try to re-write or interpret the rules to their own thought process.
__________________________________________________ ____

Comments on the 2005-06 Rules Revisions

JERSEYS/PANTS/SKIRTS PROHIBITED FROM BEING REMOVED (3-4-15, 10-3-7h, 10-4-1i): A team member is prohibited from removing his/her jersey and/or pants/skirt within the confines of the playing area. The penalty is a technical foul. The former uniform rule didn’t require team members to actually wear the team uniform. This addition also addresses a growing behavioral concern of players removing their jerseys to demonstrate frustration or anger and as a means of attracting individual attention. The rule is intended to be applied in all situations – even when a player must change uniforms due to blood or other unusual circumstances. It is not unreasonable to expect team members to go to their locker rooms to change their jerseys.

THROW-IN AWARDED TO OPPONENT FOR ALL TEAM-CONTROL FOULS (7-5-5, 4-19-7): A new definition for a team-control foul has been established, and the penalty has been changed to a throw-in in all cases. The ball will be awarded to the offended team at a spot nearest to where the foul occurred. Bonus free throws will no longer be awarded. The change makes enforcement of the rule easier for officials. Under the previous rule it was sometimes difficult to determine whether: (a) a player in control had released the ball on a pass or interrupted dribble before the player charges; and (b) a player had received a pass before the player charges. The change makes the penalty consistent for a player-control foul and a team-control foul. In addition, the change reduces delays in the game. The rule only applies when a foul occurs by the team in control. By rule, there is no team control during a throw-in, jump ball or when the ball is in flight during a try or tap for goal.

PENALTY FOR DOUBLE FOULS CHANGED TO POINT OF INTERRUPTION (7-5-9, 4-36): The penalty for double personal, double technical and simultaneous fouls has been changed from an alternating-possession throw-in to resuming play from the point of interruption. A new definition of “point of interruption” has also been added to the rules book. If the point of interruption cannot be determined e.g., unsuccessful try in flight, the alternating-possession arrow will be used. The committee felt that no team should benefit from a double foul. Under the previous rule, if the alternating-possession arrow favored the defense, the defense would be awarded the ball, benefiting from the foul act. It is hoped that the change will increase the likelihood of double fouls being called when warranted.

LEAVING COURT FOR UNAUTHORIZED REASON CHANGED TO VIOLATION (9-3-2): The rule for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason has been changed from a technical foul to a violation. Leaving the court during the course of play has been increasing with the former penalty of a technical foul not being assessed. Typically, this play is seen when an offensive player goes around a low screen, runs outside the end line and returns on the other side of the court free of their defender. The violation will be called as soon as the player leaves the court. The committee hopes that changing the penalty will increase the likelihood of the infraction being called and eliminate this tremendous advantage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Author: Unknown
Release Date: 5/10/2005




2005-06 Points of Emphasis

1. Sporting Behavior: The NFHS Basketball Rules Committee continues to be concerned with player, coach and fan behavior. While administrators continue to focus on solutions, it is imperative that all parties involved accept responsibility and improve behavior. Specifically, the committee wants the following addressed:

A. Uniforms: Players are increasingly using their uniforms in unsporting ways. Examples include: Holding the uniform out from the chest area to display the team name to the opponent or fans; pulling the uniform out of the shorts in an emotional display; and removing the jersey either on the court or near the team bench, especially after a disqualification. The committee expects jerseys to be worn properly and remain on. New Rule 3-4-15 adds, “A player shall not remove the jersey and/or pants/skirt in the confines of the playing area.” The result is a technical foul.

Uniforms must be worn as intended and the rule must be enforced. The jersey must be tucked in and shorts must be worn properly. When a player is in violation of the rule, the player is directed to leave the game. While an untucked jersey during the normal course of play is understandable until it can be corrected, too often there are multiple warnings for clear violations. Coaches bear a great responsibility in ensuring uniforms stay on team members. Officials must enforce the rule.

B. Time-outs: When a team goes on a scoring run, emotions often run high. Nationwide, there is an apparent increase in bench personnel running out onto the court after a time-out is whistled. Typically, the bench personnel of the team that has gained momentum run out onto the court to celebrate and congratulate their teammates. The other teamÂ’s players, heading toward their bench area, often cross with the celebrating team. This situation often leads to bumping, pushing and/or taunting.

Coaches must make sure that bench personnel remain in the team bench area (1-13-3) after a time-out is called. Officials must be aware of the potential for confrontation, use preventive officiating techniques and penalize appropriately.

C. Spectators: There has been emphasis over the years on player and coach behavior and the trends show improvement. However, fan behavior remains a critical concern. Too often, fans are using abusive language toward coaches, players and officials. Fans are also approaching the court, team areas and locker rooms – places that used to be “off limits” – to confront participants.

Game administrators must create and follow security procedures and support efforts to have offending fans removed from the premises. Proactive policies lead to fewer problems. It is the game administratorÂ’s ultimate responsibility to provide a safe environment for players, coaches and officials. Do not wait for the official to point out the problem. If it gets to the point that the officials have to address fan behavior, there were most likely opportunities for game administrators to deal with it before it got to that point.

Officials should never directly confront fans. Find the game administrator to take care of the problem. In extreme cases, delay the game until the offending fan is removed. Coaches must not incite fan behavior. The coach’s sideline actions often have an impact on fan behavior – positively or negatively. Schools are encouraged to have security personnel on site for such situations.

D. Coaching box: The committee wants coaches to stay in the coaching box. There is a constant problem when coaches wander. It is a distinct advantage to the coach who is permitted to be out of the box because the coach has a better chance to communicate with his/her team. The coach can also influence play by being out on the court.

The rule is black-and-white, but it has not been dealt with properly. Most officials have not enforced the rule. The fact that the coach is not directing comments to the officials or is “coaching the team” has no bearing on rule enforcement. The coach who continually abuses the coaching-box rule risks having his or her governing body remove it completely. The official who doesn’t enforce it runs the risk of not following what the governing body wants enforced.

Once the coaching box has been removed because of a technical foul, all related rules restrictions must apply. ThereÂ’s no way to get the box back after the privilege has been lost.

Assistant coaches must be seated at all times except during time-outs, to attend to an injured player after being beckoned and to spontaneously react to a play. The rules that permit a head coach to rise in certain situations (time-outs, confer with table personnel for a correctable error, dealing with disqualifications) do not apply to assistant coaches under any circumstances. Again, the fact that an assistant coach is “only coaching” has no bearing on the rule or enforcement.

Head coaches have the responsibility to remain in the box. School administrators must support that by demanding their coaches do so. When violated, the official must enforce the rule with a technical foul.

2. Free Throws.

A. Lane spaces. There has been much debate on what — if anything — to do with free-throw situations. Some want rules that would move players up on the low block or even eliminate the first lane space. The theory: The players underneath the basket are at a rebounding disadvantage. Data collected from a variety of sources does not support that theory.

Multiple studies show players in the first marked lane space garner roughly 75-80 percent of all free throw rebounds. That is a range the rules committee finds acceptable and is consistent with historical norms. The team closest to the basket is supposed to get most of the rebounds! The rules in this case are not designed to give each team an equal chance or guarantee a rebound to the defense.

B. Rough play. Keeping the block between players continues to serve its initial purpose. It reduces rough play. The same is true for player restrictions ending when the attempt hits the ring. Still, rough play is a concern. Coaches must not teach players to “lock up” arms along the lane line, nor drive players further under the basket with brute force. Officials must call those fouls.

C. Disconcertion. Free-throw disconcertion must be carefully monitored. Of particular concern is when the free throw will become dead (first of two or first two of three). Defensive players often employ tactics which serve no other purpose than to disconcert the shooter during free throws (“boxing out” the free thrower off the free-throw line, waving arms, yelling instructions to teammates, etc.). Another increasing trend is opponents outside the arc saying things to the thrower. With team free-throw percentages hovering in the mid-60’s on average, teams welcome a second chance free throw. They deserve it if disconcertion occurs and officials must call it.

3. Intentional Fouls. The committee is concerned about how games end. The intentional foul rule has devolved into misapplication and personal interpretations. The committee has revised the rule to improve understanding. An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul that neutralizes an opponentÂ’s obvious advantageous position. Contact away from the ball or when not making a legitimate attempt to play the ball, specifically designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, shall be intentional. Intentional fouls may or may not be premeditated and are not based on the severity of the act. A foul also shall be ruled intentional if while playing the ball a player causes excessive contact with an opponent.

A. Anytime in the game. Acts that neutralize an opponentÂ’s obvious advantageous position and must be deemed intentional include:
• Excessive contact on any player attempting a shot
• Grabbing or shoving a player from behind when an easy basket may be scored
• Grabbing and holding a player from behind or away from the ball
These are “non-basketball” plays and must be considered intentional fouls anytime they occur during a game.

B. Late in the game. Fouling is an accepted coaching strategy and is utilized by nearly all coaches in some form. It is viewed as a chance for a team behind in the score to get back in the game while the clock is stopped. There is widespread belief that it works or it wouldnÂ’t be coached.

There is a right way and a wrong way to foul. Coaches must instruct their players in the proper technique for strategic fouling. “Going for the ball” is a common phrase heard, but intentional fouls should still be called on players who go for the ball if it is not done properly. Conversely, a coach who yells, “Foul!” instructions to his or her team does not mean the ensuing foul is “automatically” an intentional foul — even though it is a strategic foul designed to stop the clock. Coaches, officials, players, fans and administrators must accept fouling as a legitimate coaching strategy.

With that, officials must have the courage to enforce the intentional foul rule. Far too often, officials do not whistle fouls as intentional when the act clearly meets the criteria. Officiating philosophies should not change because of the time remaining in the game or the score differential. The correct call should be made — not the popular one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Author: Unknown
Release Date: 5/10/2005

[lukealex]

Originally posted by truerookie
rules committee clearly states, they do not find it unreasonable for a player to return to the dressing room to change jersey in the case of having blood on the uniform. All other is fair game.

So it is not unreasonable to return to the dressing room, but not required to return to the dressing room? Personally I do not feel I should call a T if a player changes his/her bloody jersey courtside, but if the rule tells me to I will.

D. Coaching box:

What is the coaching box actually defined as?

[Edited by lukealex on May 17th, 2005 at 03:50 PM]

[theboys]

I gotta tell ya, if you're going to "T" a team for changing a bloody jersey at courtside, add it to your pre-game. As you know all too well, we coaches rarely read the rules.

Issuing a "T" for changing a bloody jersey goes against common sense in my book. You'd probably end up awarding the coach with his second immediately thereafter. Then, he could go to the locker room with the player, and help him find an alternate jersey himself.