T or no T

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Was this a boys game?

/end thread! LOL

For the record -- definitely NOT a T ... not within the spirit or intent of the rule. They are trying to help, not be unsporting.

[JugglingReferee]

No way I'm giving a T for removing jerseys to rid water from the floor. The kids are fixing a safety issue.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

But to be honest, I can not say I would do it. There is clearly nothing so egregious that what they did should receive the same penalty as the player who does so in anger. Prevent it from happening.

It's called selective blindness, Rev. Jmo, but I think that most good officials have a touch of it.

[truerookie]

This remains of a situation I observed when I was on vacation in Hawaii over the holiday break. I went to watch a few holdiay tournaments. A player got called for a foul it was his fifth. So, in disgust the player pulls his jersey out of his shorts immediately following the call. No call! He did not stop there he continued to remove his jersey completely. No call!!

[secondregionbug]

The spirit of the rule is what I belive is to stop a behavior problem, I did not T the kids up for this act but my partner came across the court and did after I gave them a delay of game warning. I felt bad but a rule is a rule...............

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

No, they were not brainless twits. The need for the rule arose rather quickly and before it got out of hand the rules committee addressed it.

The unfortunate thing is the penalty is applied uniformly across the board. That took away our discretion as officials to decide whether a player committed an unsporstmanlike act or not.

By rule, the 2 players should each be assessed a T.

But to be honest, I can not say I would do it. There is clearly nothing so egregious that what they did should receive the same penalty as the player who does so in anger. Prevent it from happening.

Daryl:

I meant the Casebook Play about changing shirts at the bench. I have no problem with the with the rule being applied to unsportsmanlike conduct because that was supposed to be the intent of the rule (see my comments in my OP about soccer), but as I stated in my OP, if the players are exchanging shirts because one is damaged that doesn't fit the definition of unsportsmanlike conduct. I supppose I should have said that it was brainless twits who wrote the ruling for that particular casebook play.

MTD, Sr.

[chartrusepengui]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Daryl:

I meant the Casebook Play about changing shirts at the bench. I have no problem with the with the rule being applied to unsportsmanlike conduct because that was supposed to be the intent of the rule (see my comments in my OP about soccer), but as I stated in my OP, if the players are exchanging shirts because one is damaged that doesn't fit the definition of unsportsmanlike conduct. I supppose I should have said that it was brainless twits who wrote the ruling for that particular casebook play.

MTD, Sr.

I actually had a game this year. Post player B had a cut on back of his arm. Bandaid came off during game and B is on offense. By the time we noticed the blood on arm, it was also on floor and on 4 white jerseys. We stopped play and team A only had 9 total players. We allowed the jerseys to be switched out at the bench.

Post game discussion we were wondering how 4 white jerseys got blood on them so fast. After discussion - we realized that when he set screens he did the arm cross thing and when bumps occurred - the blood transferred.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Then how about this. You take the court with 15 minutes before start time. You immediately notice a kid in a red jersey with a white undershirt. When he ends up in the layup line closest to you, you approach him and tell him that undershirt is illegal, and he needs to return to the locker room to remove it. WIth about 12 and a half minutes still on the clock, he heads over to the bench, removes his jersey, removes the illegal undershirt, replaces the jersey, and continues to warm up. Do you whack him for this?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

You take the court with 15 minutes before start time. You immediately notice a kid in a red jersey with a white undershirt. When he ends up in the layup line closest to you, you approach him and tell him that undershirt is illegal, and he needs to return to the locker room to remove it. WIth about 12 and a half minutes still on the clock, he heads over to the bench, removes his jersey, removes the illegal undershirt, replaces the jersey, and continues to warm up. Do you whack him for this?

Whistles and Stripes: Great question. This is a very real situation that can happen, especialy at the begining of the season, when new kids on a team don't understand the uniform rules.

However, one picky point. I suggest that you word it differently. Tell him that he cannot play with the white undershirt and that if he would like to remove it, he can do so in the locker room under the supervision of an adult. I am never an advocate of telling kids what to do, like remove errings, illegal headbands, etc. That's up to the player and the coach. The part about adult supervision is a little picky, but it's better to be safe than sorry.

[Back In The Saddle]

Had the water thing happen in a girls JV game. An enterising young lady sat in the puddle, and used her shorts to soak it up. Bonus points for creativity

[blindzebra]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It's called selective blindness, Rev. Jmo, but I think that most good officials have a touch of it.

So we do pick and choose what T's to give or ignore then, huh?

Seems a far cry from just enforce the rule it doesn't matter the circumstances.

[secondregionbug]

Lets vote..... To T or not to T, that is the Question....... My vote NO!

[Y2Koach]

Originally Posted by chartrusepengui

I actually had a game this year. Post player B had a cut on back of his arm. Bandaid came off during game and B is on offense. By the time we noticed the blood on arm, it was also on floor and on 4 white jerseys. We stopped play and team A only had 9 total players. We allowed the jerseys to be switched out at the bench.

Post game discussion we were wondering how 4 white jerseys got blood on them so fast. After discussion - we realized that when he set screens he did the arm cross thing and when bumps occurred - the blood transferred.

Semi-final game of a Varsity tournament this past December. My coaching staff and I were watching the game and noticed a player with blood on his jersey. As one of the officials stood in front of us during a Time out, we told the official that #50 had blood on his jersey under his right arm. After 3 or 4 minutes of game time, the other official stood in front of us during a dead ball. We told him #50 had blood on his jersey under his right arm. The ball was inbounded and another 30-45 seconds of game time elapses, when a parent behind us screams out "HE HAS BLOOD ON HIS JERSEY!!" Officials stop the game and as official #1 inspects the jersey, official #2 tells us to calm down. Then the officials confer and tell us "we don't think it's blood, and he's only gotta remove it if its saturated". When I respond "um, so that's not blood coming from the cut on his elbow?" Official administers the throw-in and says to us "that's enough from you guys, the jersey has to be saturated".

Ironically, those same officials sat a few rows behind us for the next semi-final game and a kid had a smidgen of blood on his jersey a few minutes into the game. The officials had the player removed from the game, and when we looked behind us at the officials from the previous game, they just shook their heads, saying "it's gotta be saturated, it's gotta be saturated".

[secondregionbug]

Bull

[Mark Padgett]

Did they mean it had to be like this?