Earrings Question

[Kelvin green]

Here's my approach...

Upon discovery of jewelry, the player must meet the rules.
Tell the player to take em out if they want to continue playing, if they can get them out fast let the player take em out an play, if they cant then sub.

I do the samething with hair pins ( I check) and you miss some that at somepoint you pick up because of reflections.

If the player refuses they go to the bench

Shoes get tied and we wait.... what's the big deal here. I think the common sense approach here is the simplest, fastest, least controversial...

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Shirts/pants are covered under R3-4,which is labelled "uniforms".Jewelry is covered under R3-5,which is labelled "team members equipment,apparel",and is composed strictly of safety items.That's why I think that they handle them differently.You don't have the same liability with letting a player play with his/her shirt untucked as you would for allowing someone to play while wearing jewelry.The big difference is that the rules allow a player to play while wearing illegal shirts/shorts,at the cost of a technical foul(R10-3-3),while a player wearing jewelry can never buy their way into a game with a T.We simply don't allow them to play.Casebook play 3.5.5SitA,covering jewelry,is pretty specific.It says "No penalty is involved.A6 simply cannot participate until the illegal items are removed". JMO!

Woody, I understand the difference in the rules. But I think the approach is somewhat legalistic and technical. It's obvious from 3.4.15 that the NF does not want a team to gain an advantage by allowing a sub to replace a FT shooter who's shirt is untucked. The same advantage is gained if a FT shooter is removed from the game because of jewelry. An intended advatnage, at that. The fundamental issue is the same, an improperly equipped player.

If 3.4.15 was not in the casebook, we would be required to send the shooter to the bench and bring in the sub. Therefore, 3.4.15 sets a precedent. I feel very comfortable using the same reasoning for a FT shooter wearing jewelry. If I don't use 3.4.15, I'm going to tell the player that she must remove the earring or leave the game, her call. But I'm not bringing a sub in and allowing Team A to gain an intended advantage.

You may not agree with me but do you see where I'm coming from?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Woody, I understand the difference in the rules. But I think the approach is somewhat legalistic and technical. It's obvious from 3.4.15 that the NF does not want a team to gain an advantage by allowing a sub to replace a FT shooter who's shirt is untucked. The same advantage is gained if a FT shooter is removed from the game because of jewelry. An intended advatnage, at that. The fundamental issue is the same, an improperly equipped player.

If 3.4.15 was not in the casebook, we would be required to send the shooter to the bench and bring in the sub. Therefore, 3.4.15 sets a precedent. I feel very comfortable using the same reasoning for a FT shooter wearing jewelry. If I don't use 3.4.15, I'm going to tell the player that she must remove the earring or leave the game, her call. But I'm not bringing a sub in and allowing Team A to gain an intended advantage.

You may not agree with me but do you see where I'm coming from? [/B]

Of course I know where you're coming from,Tony--common sense.I'd also bet that you'd never(sorry,J.Dallas Shirley) use CB3.4.15 either in a game.You'd sweetly whisper in the FT shooter's ear-"pull up yo pants and tuck yo freakin' shirt in,or I'll put yo sorry a$$ on the pine"-just like I would.I really can't imagine a player refusing to do so when asked to so nicely.I'd do the same thing as you with an earring,too-tell him/her to unload the damn things,and then just shoot the ft's after they do so.
However,from a straight rulebook stand point,I think that they are directing us to handle the 2 cases differently.Why?-I dunno!

[Dan_ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

...never(sorry,J.Dallas Shirley)...

Excuse me, I have to wipe the coffee off my monitor...

...You'd sweetly whisper in the FT shooter's ear-"pull up yo pants and tuck yo freakin' shirt in,or I'll put yo sorry a$$ on the pine"-just like I would.

There's our answer! (Took you guys long enough to get there )

[Jurassic Referee]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Excuse me, I have to wipe the coffee off my monitor...

There's our answer! (Took you guys long enough to get there )

Yeah,Dan,it's another interesting rulebook discussion that really doesn't relate to how most officials would handle the situations in real life.I know how you'd handle them,too.
Btw,is it time for the Boss to buy another coupla outfielders and a 6-pack of pitchers?

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Btw,is it time for the Boss to buy another coupla outfielders and a 6-pack of pitchers?

Nah, not yet. Give it another month before we panic.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Kelvin green
Here's my approach...

Upon discovery of jewelry, the player must meet the rules.
Tell the player to take em out if they want to continue playing, if they can get them out fast let the player take em out an play, if they cant then sub.

I do the samething with hair pins ( I check) and you miss some that at somepoint you pick up because of reflections.

If the player refuses they go to the bench

Shoes get tied and we wait.... what's the big deal here. I think the common sense approach here is the simplest, fastest, least controversial...

Some people seem to be missing the point of the no jewelry requirement under both NFHS and NCAA rules. A player is NOT allowed to wear jewelry PERIOD. If a player is found to be wearing jewelry while playing, the player must leave the game. The player does NOT get the opportunity to remove the jewelry and stay in the game. The reason for this position is that the game officials do not have the authority to make a player remove his/her jewelry. The game officials responsiblity is to see that players who are wearing jewelry do not play in the game. It is a team's coach's resposibility to see that his/her players are compliance with the rules of the game. The same rational applies to illegal objects in a player's hair.

For untied shoelaces please see my postings of the thread that was started today. You will see that officials have not had the authority to stop the game or delay making the ball live to allow a player to tie his/her shoes since the 1963-64 season.

[Dan_ref]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Some people seem to be missing the point of the no jewelry requirement under both NFHS and NCAA rules...The game officials responsiblity is to see that players who are wearing jewelry do not play in the game.

Exactly, which does NOT preclude them from waiting for the
player to take the jewelry off, IMO. Apparently the NCAA
rules committee agrees: Look at 3-7-6 and related A.R.17 & 18. I hope this is enough to put this to an end.

[Kelvin green]

Mark

Gotta disagree. I am not 100% sure but I dont think there is anything in the rule book that can justify you forcing the player to substitute. The player is not legally equipped. All we have to do is get them legal.

I've discovered jewelry after the game is started... Most players just have forgotten they had it on and we did not see it in pregame. MOst players when you tell them they say whoops... sorry, and they go take it off and we play. Takes a few seconds but I can tell you that the coaches dont get nearly as pissed as when a coach is told he or she needs to substitute. If I can buy a little with the coaches at that point, It will be a whole lot easier toi deal with them when I have a serious problem..

You also state that an official cant direct a player to remove jewelry. I suppose that perspective comes from a liability standpoint but I'd be hardpressed to find why it would be wrong for an official to tell a player "Go take the jewelry out if you want to play." If the player argues then she goes out and we tell the coach.

I'm sure that 99.9% of the officials out there dont tell a player "Youre not legally equipped, leave the floor until you become legally equipped within the rules" and not tell the kid why they are illegally equipped.

This is probably a difference in philosophy, but most guys around where I work would probably handle it the same way I do unless the delay gets too long..

[Brian Watson]

Originally posted by Kelvin green

You also state that an official cant direct a player to remove jewelry. I suppose that perspective comes from a liability standpoint but I'd be hardpressed to find why it would be wrong for an official to tell a player "Go take the jewelry out if you want to play." If the player argues then she goes out and we tell the coach.

You're right. For liability sake you should tell them only that they cannot play with jewelry on. It is up to them and their coach how to recitfy that situation. Don't know if it is a wives tale o not but rumor is a ref in another part of the state go sued because he told the girl to take the earring out, and it got infected. It is all semantics.

In fact, I have had kids ask if I am telling them to take it out, and I say no. All I am saying is you cannot play with it in.

[Kelvin green]

I'd really like to see that case! and the theories that they sued on if it really did happen.

I can't see how a ref could be sued for this and have it sustained. especially if the girl continued play after she was told to take the earring off.

Under negligence (which is how most refs are sued) it's because we breached our duty of care that we owed the player/players. I cant see what duty would be breached by telling her to take it off. Now if we told her to take it off and she did not play the rest of the game maybe.... but I still think it's a stretch. We would be more negligent and more culpable if she played with them in.

If you know the case or who the parties were let me know. I'd like to look that one up (hopefully there's a published opinion)
Where's Mel Narol???

[echo]

I called a few park and rec girls games this past season (U12). Most of the girls that did have earrings would come out with tape covering them. It seemed to me they were playing the gray area of the rule.
What's your thought?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by echo
I called a few park and rec girls games this past season (U12). Most of the girls that did have earrings would come out with tape covering them. It seemed to me they were playing the gray area of the rule.
What's your thought?

My thought is very clear. Do not let this happen under any circumstances. It is the "slippery slope" theory. If you allow taped-over earrings this game, how much must be covered next game, etc.

My liability insurance will not cover me if I knowingly allow a player to play with anything that is generally considered a safety hazard in the industry. 'Nuff said.

I worked one rec tournament two years ago where the coordinator told me on the first day that they were allowing players to wear taped over earrings. I told him to get another ref. He recanted.

[rcwilco]

I do not really think there is a gray area. No earrings, no tape, no jewelery, nothing dangerous. It is black and white for myself. I am personally aware of two situations, one in soccer and one in basketball, where officials in games just before mine missed or allowed jewelery or taped items, and ended up with one torn ear lobe and a nasty cut from an item in a players hair. As an aside I have also seen players in soccer get their knees injured or cut from uncoverd shin guards and altered ones.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by echo
I called a few park and rec girls games this past season (U12). Most of the girls that did have earrings would come out with tape covering them. It seemed to me they were playing the gray area of the rule.
What's your thought?

If there's tape covering the earrings, is the player still wearing jewelry?