T on Home for non white uniforms
 

I thought I could find this in the books but could not.

If Team A (Home) does not have white uniforms and we start with technical fouls, how are the techs charged?

Against coach as indirect? I say no.
Against team foul count? I say yes.
Against the player toward disqualification? I say yes.

As best as I can determine the T is for wearing an illegal uniform and therefore falls under 10-3-2. Is that correct?

Per 10-3-2 it is a player technical. It is charged toward the player, no indirect to the coach. It is charged toward the team foul count and toward disqualification as well.

You can also find this on the technical foul penalty page 72

Unless you are in IL then you just scowl and shake your finger at them, and send a report to the IHSA:D

Or in Minnesota, where home team wears dark and VISITORS wear white :rolleyes:

:D In Wis we aren't even supposed to scowl - just send a report to the WIAA

Ya know - it really sox for the players - who don't even buy or provide the uniforms in the first place. Poor kid's are wearing what has been provided and then get knocked with a T that goes towards their disqualification - for an entire season. :(

Yep. Although just thing what a boost to the economy this could turn into if all those kids, with all that disposable income, all go buy their own white jerseys. :cool:

As an official who does not referee under NFHS rules, could someone please explain the logic behind this uniform rule?

Under FIBA rules, the rule states the Home team shall wear a light colored uniform HOWEVER if both teams agree the Home team may wear a dark colored uniform.

I'm having a little trouble understanding how this type of T improves the game.

Any feedback is appreciated...

My theory?

Too many teams had darker "light" uniforms (such as gold) and lighter "dark" uniforms (such as gold) that led to the occasional problem.

The simplest way to address the problem was to have home teams always wear white. The T only improves the game in this case in the long run, by providing a serious deterrent to schools for non-compliance.

I think the rule is to just bring some consistency in. What does it mean that both teams "agree"? What if the home team was under the impression that there was agreement, but the visiting team was not and you have two teams that show up wearing red? This just gives you a fall back, no matter what this is what you wear and then we never have a problem. It's not like they just sprung this on anyone, how long has it been 4 years that they have been saying that this is coming? The T I suppose is the only real way to get schools to respond....I'm guessing this was proably an issue at some point or they wouldn't have created the rule...

I have to agree. Several yeards back, one of the high schools I was at had blue and red uniforms and would pretty much dress opposite of whatever color the opponent wore. It does seem to go against common sense, but if you've tried to do a game with blue vs. purple or light gray vs. white uniforms, you might see why NFHS decided to adopt this rule.

As the red/blue uniform example indicates (if you imagine varying shades of those colors), "light" and "dark" are relatively subjective terms. The rule change removes the ambiguity and potential for problems.

How so?

I don\'t think there are any uniform restrictions on the sox.

A T when they enter every game in those uniforms.