T or no T

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The intent the rule forbidding a player from removing his jersey was to prevent basketball players copying soccer players and their stupid habit of removing their jerseys to protest the officiating or celebrating a score. Instead the Rules Committee, said that if A1 had to use A15's jersey because maybe A1's jersey became torn, A1 and A15 and to go to locker room to make the switch and if they made the exchange at courtside, it was a TF for each player who removed his shirt. Once again the brainless twits were writing the rules and casebook plays.

MTD, Sr.

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.

[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!!

[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.

[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.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The intent the rule forbidding a player from removing his jersey was to prevent basketball players copying soccer players and their stupid habit of removing their jerseys to protest the officiating or celebrating a score. Instead the Rules Committee, said that if A1 had to use A15's jersey because maybe A1's jersey became torn, A1 and A15 and to go to locker room to make the switch and if they made the exchange at courtside, it was a TF for each player who removed his shirt. Once again the brainless twits were writing the rules and casebook plays.

MTD, Sr.

I thought the spirit and intent of the rule also included an aspect of modesty. My understanding is that it includes players who arrive late, and are simply changing in order to play, and players who need a different jersey because of damage or blood. Am I wrong about this?