Ok, here's something I saw near the end of last night's Cincinnati/Xavier game (well, at least what I saw of the game in between showing every possible camera angle of Bob Huggins in the stands... :rolleyes: )

Rebound by Cincy under Xavier's basket, Xavier player loses his shoe - I believe it was just stepped on by another player. Player picks up his shoe, and goes on down the court to play defense, because he doesn't want to stop and put it back on and leave his teammates with 4 on defense. Gets back on defense, and almost knocks the ball away with the shoe in his hand! In fact, he's right next to the Cincy player as a teammate ties up the Cincy player for a held ball.

Let's say he would've knocked the ball away with the shoe - violation? Or play on? If violation, which rule applies? I just want to get right to the heart and sole of the matter.

Invoke that baseball rule that sez a fielder can't throw his glove at a batted ball...put the batter on 3rd.

Other than that I'm not sure what to do here, but I can't imagine how this violates anything written in the book. Clearly 2-3 comes into play though.

That must have arched some eyebrows. Is it a violation to just shoo the ball away? Conversely, you'd feel like a real heel if you stepped all over this one.

Z

Sounds like a kick to me :))

Blow the the play dead as soon as he starts to participate with the shoe in his hand. Cincy ball OOB.

[Edited by SamIAm on Jan 20th, 2006 at 11:17 AM]

Oh, but we need to fawn over Bob, and he just loves all those kids and how hard they've worked. . . barf.


Obviously, he's playing with equipment that is not being used in the manner intended (3-5-3). But there's no penalty listed that I can see. The referee is simply not supposed to allow him to play. So if he hit the ball with his shoe, you have two choices:

1) Call a kicking violation. Since you're allowing him to play, he must be wearing the shoe properly, which means it must be on his foot. Ok, that's a stretch.

2) Stop the game, and sub him out for not wearing the equipment correctly. Resume at the POI, which is with the offense still in control of the ball.

Grooooooan!

Oh, man. Double grooooooooan!!!

Illegal as per NCAA rule 3-7-8- "Any equipment that is unnatural and is designed to increase a player's height <b>or reach, or to gain an unfair advantage</b> shall be prohibited".

Close enough for me though. I don't know whether I'd call that a violation or a "T" though. I'd leave that up to the R- I'd become the U2 in a hurry.

Wha?

In my book 3-5-3 says Game jerseys shall be tucked in the game pants.

OK, that's more like it. T or violation based on what rule?

Don't ask me. Ask the R.

If he made contact with the shoe, I'd call a violation. I'd use 2-3 for the first time in my life too. Can't let him get away with any kind of advantage.

Unless of course we consider the hand to be a part of the shoe.....

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jan 20th, 2006 at 11:33 AM]

LOL

Good idea! Hey, this seems like a good time to go check if there are any broken light bulbs on the scoreboard.

T or violation based on what rule?
[/B][/QUOTE]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?"

That's exactly what I was thinkin'. I was sitting there watching it, going "Thank gawd he didn't actually hit the ball", then thinking about the conference that would ensue if he did.

When they showed the replay, the player wasn't using the shoe for extra reach, etc.; it was planted firmly in the middle of his hand. I first thought about NCAA 3-7-8 as well, but he wasn't gaining any obvious advantage. I could see that if he was holding the heel, and pointing the toe at the defender like a sword, for example. But he was using his arms and hands in normal defensive mode for those few moments of play; it's just that there was a shoe in his hand at the time.

I was using the closest book I had, which is a HS book, and an old one at that. Both my current books are in my bag. So shoot me (or is that "thou shalt shoot me?).

When they showed the replay, the player wasn't using the shoe for extra reach, etc.; it was planted firmly in the middle of his hand. I first thought about NCAA 3-7-8 as well, but he wasn't gaining any obvious advantage. I could see that if he was holding the heel, and pointing the toe at the defender like a sword, for example. But he was using his arms and hands in normal defensive mode for those few moments of play; it's just that there was a shoe in his hand at the time. [/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.

Irrelevant. It's not being worn/used in the manner that it was intended for. Can't play that way.

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

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.

[/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?

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 <b>shall be worn in the manner the manufacturer intended it to be worn</b>". Iow, wristbands go on wrists, headbands go on heads, etc. We instruct our officials to call it that way too.

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?

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.

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]

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 <s> is not worth 2 in the...errr...</s> does not extend the reach. If that's the case it seems legal.

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).

You seem pretty certain this is true.

Care to back it up?

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 <b>shall be worn in the manner the manufacturer intended it to be worn</b>". 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.

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?

What if the player hits/swats the ball with the back of his hand, even though he's holding the shoe in that same hand, and the shoe never touches the ball or other player? Or, for that matter, bats the ball away with the other hand? Stop play, or play on?

(1/2 curiosity, 1/2 pot-stirring)

Of course it does. If it increases the surface area of your hand, it's extended. Extension is not just outward from the fingertips; it's outward, period.

I really don't know wtf you're talking about here Chuck.

Maybe you mean to use the word "volume" instead of "area"??

If not then I admit you have sure confused the heck out of me.

For me, swatting <U>at</U> the ball with the hand that is holding a shoe is a gonna be a violation based on:<LI>Safety - shoe gets away and strikes a player, shoelace in an eye. <LI>Intimidation - heavy handed tactics due to increased mass like throwing an elbow

And so I ask myself,"Self? Why are you responding to this post?"
mick

When did Self respond? Or did he just delete it after posting it? And what about Naomi?

Anyway, I would think if the officials on that game had to deal with it if the shoe had contacted (heavy-handedly? grooooooan!) another player, I would think the whistle would've blown, someone would be pointing OOB, play would be held up a little while the kid put his shoe back on, (we probably would've had yet ANOTHER pic of Huggins in the stands), and away we go. That's what separates them from us, I guess. I sat there in the chair, and did not know what to do. I wonder what I would've come up with in an actual game situation.

Now, back to your original program, "Professors Chuck and Dan Discuss Grade School Geometry".

We coulda been discussing Shana Hiatt but nooooooo, the president of the Phil Helmuth fan club had to open up his yap...

Hey, I hope this doesn't mean I secretly like German porn?

Sure. Pick up a shoe. Is it exactly the same size and shape as your hand? [/B][/QUOTE]Nope, usually (and hopefully) it's the same size and shape as your foot.

Don't worry about it, if it turns out you do you'll get a letter from the NSA letting you know.

Use rule 3-5-3 for that one. It sez "Equipment shall not be modified from it's original manufactured state and <b>shall be worn in the manner the manufacturer intended it to be worn</b>". 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. [/B][/QUOTE]That ruling makes absolutely <b>zero</b> sense to me. If you're gonna interpret a rule to say that wearing wristbands or sweatbands anywhere on the body <b>is</b> legal, then under what authority can someone then making up a <b>new</b> rule restricting a player to one per limb? That ruling is completely illogical imo. If a player does wear 2 on a limb and that player refuses to take one off when told to, what rule in the book are you gonna use to enforce your edict? What rule do you cite to the coach when he asks why it's legal for his player to wear one, but it's illegal for his player to wear two?

But, it is what it is and you gotta follow it. Dumb as it is.

This is an interesting dicussion :)

So Mick, you're looking at it kind of like swinging elbows or striking with a fist (as far as rules that this is kind of like), that the act is potentially dangerous, even if contact isn't made (as in swinging elbows)?

Rainmaker, I had missed that part of the rule. Thanks. That kind of deflates any objections about a shoe being legal equipment. However, the rules still specify no penalty or remedy for not wearing a shoe properly, though the jersey rule is a useful analogue, I think.

Originally I had thought I might pass on contact with the shoe if it didn't extend the player's reach. I don't buy Chuck's "volume" justification, but I think he's probably right nonetheless. Any contact with the shoe is going to raise all kinds of red flags with a lot of people: players, coaches, fans, partners. It just isn't how basketball is supposed to be played. So we probably have to stop play if any "interesting" contact with that shoe occurs.

But I'm not sure I agree with POI. Depends on the situation, I guess. If he uses it on defense, and the offense has possession, it makes sense to give it back to the offense, so POI works there. If he blocks a shot with it, I don't feel right going to the arrow. It feels like he's done something wrong and the ball ought to go back to the shooting team. OTOH, there is rules support for POI (in general, not in this specific case) and none for a violation. But I still think it ought to go back to the shooter. As I was once told, "If you don't know what to do, do what's fair." If you throw goaltending or BI into this situation, I think the shoe is ignored and the violation called.

Would anybody think some kind of "preventive officiating" approach to prevent this would be advisable? Maybe as the kid with the shoe runs by ask him to give it to you? Maybe just holler "shoe," and hold your hands out, asking him to toss it to you?

Can't call GT if a thrown shoe hits a shot on the way <b>up</b>, can you?

What is the correct call?

Forgive me, Lord..... :D

Nope...but I'm gonna have a fragrant foul and automatic ejection for having that stinky shoe off in the first place...followed closely by my unveiling of the life-size poster of Dan and Shanna Hiatt that I found online earlier today - thus distracting the coaches long enough to make a quick escape out the nearest exit...

In the NBA, you can. But only in the NBA. :)

No mention of on the way up or down. As long as it's released, it's BI. That's from the '02 case book, which is unfortunately the most recent book I have.

If Ron Artest threw a fan and it hit the ball, would it be the same call under NBA rules?

Didn't see the game or situation. But reading all this, maybe put this into a diffrent but simular situation. Say the player did this same thing but wearing a plastic facemask. What would be the diffrence?

"Proper equiped" is asked to the coaches at pre-game, this is the ticket here. PROPERLY EQUIPED is NOT be done, stop play after, sub in new player (like a untucked shirt), get the game going....... Flagrent if the player was using the shoe (facemask) to hurt someone, which would result in ejection.

I too saw this play in the Cinci/Xavier game. Now you have to understand that I have had a great deal of experience as a soccer referee, so I am familiar with players losing shoes. In soccer if a player throws a shoe at the ball it is considered unsporting conduct and a caution is given. If a field player holds any object in his hand and strikes the ball it is considered a handball and also unsporting conduct. If the goalkeeper holds any object in his hand (a shoe, shinguard, stick, etc.) and strikes the ball while within his penalty area it is NOT considered a handball offense but it is still unsporting.

My immediate reaction to the basketball play was that if his shoe in his hand had contacted the ball, I would have charged a technical foul for unsporting conduct.

After reading this thread, I still would make that ruling.

Based on what ncaa rule?

I was translating the play to a HS game and then ruling based on the "commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to,..." language.

I'll have to check if the NCAA has something similar.

IMO, it's too much of a stretch to include the action of playing with a shoe on the hand (in the scenario described) to call it unsporting.

If you think that the player did it on purpose to gain an advantage, or repeated the act after being told not to, or threw the shoe at the ball, etc, you might have a case for an unsporting T.