The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 20, 2006, 11:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 9,105
Send a message via AIM to ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by M&M Guy
I first thought about NCAA 3-7-8 as well, but he wasn't gaining any obvious advantage.
Irrelevant. It's not being worn/used in the manner that it was intended for. Can't play that way.
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 20, 2006, 11:52am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Houghton, U.P., Michigan
Posts: 9,953
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
T or violation based on what rule?
[/B]
Don't ask me. Ask the R. [/B][/QUOTE]

LOL

Good idea! Hey, this seems like a good time to go check if there are any broken light bulbs on the scoreboard. [/B][/QUOTE]Go back and read the amended post.

It asks that pithy question "Is the hand part of the shoe?" [/B][/QUOTE]

A Handshuh?
That's a German glove ain't it?
mick
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 20, 2006, 11:58am
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
NCAA rule 3-7-6- "Equipment shall be appropriate for basketball".

I don't think that a player wearing a shoe on his hand is gonna meet that criteria.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 20, 2006, 12:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 34
[/B][/QUOTE]Easy one in NFHS. Case book play 3.5SitA tells us that one criteria to be applied is that the equipment used is supposed to be appropriate for basketball. That's why we don't let players wear gloves for instance, which are specifically mentioned as a no-no in that case play. It's also why we wouldn't let 'em wear shoes as gloves either. Use the same thinking for NCAA- if there isn't already something in their rules already resembling the FED philosophy. [/B][/QUOTE]

Can this be applied to situations where HS players are wearing the wristbands up on their biceps or even on their legs? Do you ignore this or address it?
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 20, 2006, 12:17pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally posted by lookin2improve
Easy one in NFHS. Case book play 3.5SitA tells us that one criteria to be applied is that the equipment used is supposed to be appropriate for basketball. That's why we don't let players wear gloves for instance, which are specifically mentioned as a no-no in that case play. It's also why we wouldn't let 'em wear shoes as gloves either. Use the same thinking for NCAA- if there isn't already something in their rules already resembling the FED philosophy. [/B][/QUOTE]

Can this be applied to situations where HS players are wearing the wristbands up on their biceps or even on their legs? Do you ignore this or address it? [/B][/QUOTE]Use rule 3-5-3 for that one. It sez "Equipment shall not be modified from it's original manufactured state and shall be worn in the manner the manufacturer intended it to be worn". Iow, wristbands go on wrists, headbands go on heads, etc. We instruct our officials to call it that way too.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 20, 2006, 12:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Champaign, IL
Posts: 5,687
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
NCAA rule 3-7-6- "Equipment shall be appropriate for basketball".

I don't think that a player wearing a shoe on his hand is gonna meet that criteria.
The shoe is appropriate for basketball. Players use them all the time. A glove isn't appropriate for basketball, and it is not used anywhere; hand, foot, head, etc. Granted, it wasn't being used in the "approved" manner. But, he wasn't "wearing" it on his hand, he was holding it.

I've been trying to think of another possible example, and all I can think of is this (weak?) possibility: can a player grab the bottom of their jersey, and hold it out away from their body (think bat wings) to say, deflect a pass going under their arms? The jersey is appropriate equipment. Now, in this case, I can see using the jersey this way as perhaps falling under "gaining an unfair advantage". But in the shoe instance, he wasn't using it unfairly, it was just in his hand. So, is the hand part of the shoe, or is the shoe part of the hand?
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department.

(Used with permission.)
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 20, 2006, 12:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
NCAA rule 3-7-6- "Equipment shall be appropriate for basketball".

I don't think that a player wearing a shoe on his hand is gonna meet that criteria.
It doesn't sound like he was "wearing" it on his hand, only that he was holding it.

A shoe is legal equipment. We won't stop play for a player to put a shoe back on. And it's a hazard having it on the court. Best option is probably for him to toss it to the bench. But he's not required to do that. So what do we do? The "appropriate equipment" rule doesn't specify a penalty, which says to me that the rules committee didn't consider that an otherwise legal piece of equipment would become illegal (or at least not often enough to warrant a ruling).

The best analogue is probably the untucked jersey rule. Send the player out of the game to get his shoe back on at the earliest opportunity. For a shirt that would be the next dead ball. But in this case, where you may have to deal with the issue of the shoe in hand contacting the ball...maybe kill the play on the same basis that you would for an injured player, as soon as the offense isn't making a move to the basket.

But it the shoe contacts the ball...
Having the shoe in his hand is a disadvantage to the shoe-bearer since he loses the full utility of that hand. That, I think, balances out the disadvantage to the defense that the ball will likely carom oddly off the shoe. If, however, the shoe extends his reach and allows him to get his "hand" on a ball he normally couldn't, then I think you've got to call something. In this case, I think I'm invoking 2-3 and calling an otherwise unsupported violation and giving the ball back to the offense. And I'm sending the player out to get his shoe back on.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 20, 2006, 12:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by M&M Guy
I first thought about NCAA 3-7-8 as well, but he wasn't gaining any obvious advantage.
Irrelevant. It's not being worn/used in the manner that it was intended for. Can't play that way.
But the ncaa rules we're discussing (3-7-8-& 3-7-5) say nothing about equipment beng worn or used in the manner it was intended. As M&M says a shoe is perfectly appropriate for basketball, the only question left to answer is did the player using it gain an unfair advantage.

If the shoe did not extend his reach you could argue that what he did is legal.

I just read BITS' post & I agree with what he's saying.

[Edited by Dan_ref on Jan 20th, 2006 at 12:41 PM]
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 20, 2006, 01:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 9,105
Send a message via AIM to ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
But the ncaa rules we're discussing (3-7-8-& 3-7-5) say nothing about equipment beng worn or used in the manner it was intended.
Art 8 says it can't extend a player's reach. A hand-shoe certainly extends his reach.
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 20, 2006, 01:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
But the ncaa rules we're discussing (3-7-8-& 3-7-5) say nothing about equipment beng worn or used in the manner it was intended.
Art 8 says it can't extend a player's reach. A hand-shoe certainly extends his reach.
No, read my prior post. It's certainly possible the shoe in the hand is not worth 2 in the...errr... does not extend the reach. If that's the case it seems legal.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 20, 2006, 02:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 9,105
Send a message via AIM to ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
It's certainly possible the shoe in the hand does not extend the reach.
How? No matter how you hold it, it's going to make the area you can swat bigger. That's extending your reach. As soon as the ball makes contact with the shoe, I would stop the clock, send the kid out and award the ball back at the POI (which I'm praying is to the offense, without use of the arrow).
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 20, 2006, 02:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
It's certainly possible the shoe in the hand does not extend the reach.
How? No matter how you hold it, it's going to make the area you can swat bigger.
You seem pretty certain this is true.

Care to back it up?
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 20, 2006, 02:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:
Originally posted by lookin2improve
Easy one in NFHS. Case book play 3.5SitA tells us that one criteria to be applied is that the equipment used is supposed to be appropriate for basketball. That's why we don't let players wear gloves for instance, which are specifically mentioned as a no-no in that case play. It's also why we wouldn't let 'em wear shoes as gloves either. Use the same thinking for NCAA- if there isn't already something in their rules already resembling the FED philosophy.
Can this be applied to situations where HS players are wearing the wristbands up on their biceps or even on their legs? Do you ignore this or address it? [/B][/QUOTE]Use rule 3-5-3 for that one. It sez "Equipment shall not be modified from it's original manufactured state and shall be worn in the manner the manufacturer intended it to be worn". Iow, wristbands go on wrists, headbands go on heads, etc. We instruct our officials to call it that way too. [/B][/QUOTE]

We were instructed in our meeting on Wednesday evening that the SWEAT bands can be worn wherever, but only one per limb.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 20, 2006, 02:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Western Mass.
Posts: 9,105
Send a message via AIM to ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
No matter how you hold it, it's going to make the area you can swat bigger.
You seem pretty certain this is true.

Care to back it up?
Sure. Pick up a shoe. Is it exactly the same size and shape as your hand? If not, it increases the area that you can touch with that hand. Increased area = extension.
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 20, 2006, 02:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Just north of hell
Posts: 9,250
Send a message via AIM to Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:
Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:
Originally posted by ChuckElias
No matter how you hold it, it's going to make the area you can swat bigger.
You seem pretty certain this is true.

Care to back it up?
Sure. Pick up a shoe. Is it exactly the same size and shape as your hand? If not, it increases the area that you can touch with that hand. Increased area = extension.
I just did that.

I can hold a shoe in my hand in such a way that while it does not conform exactly to the size & shape of my hand this extension you speak of does not exist.

Anything else we can try?

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:39am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1