Earrings Question

[mick]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

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

Tony,
I usually tell 'em they can wear the tape, but not the other stuff.
mick

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

The intent of A.R. 17 is to state that A6 cannot enter the game while wearing jewelry. A6 must be ready to enter the game when beckoned into the game. If A6 is wearing jewelry, he/she cannot enter the game and the game officials should not delay putting the ball back into play in order for A6 makes him/herself legal to enter the game.

As far as A.R. 18 is concerned, the game officials are give two choices on how to handle A5's wearing of jewelry. In both cases the game must be stopped. The game officials can either delay the game long enough for A5 to make him/herself legal or to make A5 leave the game and not return until he/she is legal.

My modus operandi is to have A5 leave the game. I do not like to delay play to allow A5 to make him/herself legal when she knows she was illegal to begin with. Having A5 leave the game until he/she is legal makes more sense than delaying the game. And fortunately A.R. 18 gives the game officials the option to do that if they so desire

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I should add that the NFHS Rules do not allow the game officials to delay the game for A5 to remove his/her jewelry. The rules are quite clear. A5 cannot be in the game while wearing jewelry and A6 cannot enter the game while wearing jewelry.

[mick]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I should add that the NFHS Rules do not allow the game officials to delay the game for A5 to remove his/her jewelry. The rules are quite clear. A5 cannot be in the game while wearing jewelry and A6 cannot enter the game while wearing jewelry.

Mark T.,
NFHS Rules do not disallow the game officials to delay the game for jewelry removal.
We have to guess and do what feels good.
mick

[Dan_ref]

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

Originally posted by Dan_ref

The intent of A.R. 17 is to state that A6 cannot enter the game while wearing jewelry. A6 must be ready to enter the game when beckoned into the game. If A6 is wearing jewelry, he/she cannot enter the game and the game officials should not delay putting the ball back into play in order for A6 makes him/herself legal to enter the game.

As far as A.R. 18 is concerned, the game officials are give two choices on how to handle A5's wearing of jewelry. In both cases the game must be stopped. The game officials can either delay the game long enough for A5 to make him/herself legal or to make A5 leave the game and not return until he/she is legal.

My modus operandi is to have A5 leave the game. I do not like to delay play to allow A5 to make him/herself legal when she knows she was illegal to begin with. Having A5 leave the game until he/she is legal makes more sense than delaying the game. And fortunately A.R. 18 gives the game officials the option to do that if they so desire

AR 17 ruling states: "Substitute A6 shall not be permitted
to enter before removing the jewelry..." and goes
on to say that A6 can't "buy" his way into the game wearing
jewelry by taking a T. It says nothing whatsover about
refusing to allow A6 to enter if the jewelry is removed.
This is further backed up by AR 18, which quite explicitely states A6 can remove the jewelry & stay in the game. These 2 rulings define exactly how jewelry should be
handled for subs & players. No ifs, ands or buts.
Now, if the intent of AR 17 was to prevent A6 from
entering a reasonable person would expect it to say "A6
cannot enter the game until the next opportunity to do so".
But of course it doesn't.

As to your MO, that's fine, but don't you think it's uhmmm,
unfair to position your MO as rule when in fact it is
nothing more than how you like to handle it?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

AR 17 ruling states: "Substitute A6 shall not be permitted
to enter before removing the jewelry..." and goes
on to say that A6 can't "buy" his way into the game wearing
jewelry by taking a T. It says nothing whatsover about
refusing to allow A6 to enter if the jewelry is removed.
This is further backed up by AR 18, which quite explicitely states A6 can remove the jewelry & stay in the game. These 2 rulings define exactly how jewelry should be
handled for subs & players. No ifs, ands or buts.
Now, if the intent of AR 17 was to prevent A6 from
entering a reasonable person would expect it to say "A6
cannot enter the game until the next opportunity to do so".
But of course it doesn't.

As to your MO, that's fine, but don't you think it's uhmmm,
unfair to position your MO as rule when in fact it is
nothing more than how you like to handle it?

Dan_ref: Read ALL of A.R. #18 RULING: The game shall be stopped. A5 shall be required to remove the jewelry immediately OR (bold letters my emphasis) be required to leave the game and not return until after removing the jewelry. A5 cannot "buy" the right to wear the jewelry by being charged with an indirect techncial foul.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[/B]

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.[/B][/QUOTE]Mark,all Dan has been trying to tell you is that the last sentence of your quote above is wrong,by rule.The key word that IS wrong is "must".An official does have the option of letting the player remove the jewelry without having to remove that player from the game,as Dan has so ably pointed out.You have now agreed with Dan that an official does have that option in some of your later posts i.e you were wrong.
Whatinthehell are we argueing about?

[Dan_ref]

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

Dan_ref: Read ALL of A.R. #18 RULING: The game shall be stopped. A5 shall be required to remove the jewelry immediately OR (bold letters my emphasis) be required to leave the game and not return until after removing the jewelry. A5 cannot "buy" the right to wear the jewelry by being charged with an indirect techncial foul.

We were never discussing a player buying their way into a
game. You are deflecting the argument because your original
claim has been shown to be wrong. You claimed that the
official MUST order a player to leave when the player is
found to be wearing jewelry. By AR 18 the official can wait
for the jewelry to be removed. My reading of the rest of
AR 18 is that the player can't refuse & buy their way in
by taking a T.

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

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.[/B]

Mark,all Dan has been trying to tell you is that the last sentence of your quote above is wrong,by rule.The key word that IS wrong is "must".An official does have the option of letting the player remove the jewelry without having to remove that player from the game,as Dan has so ably pointed out.You have now agreed with Dan that an official does have that option in some of your later posts i.e you were wrong.
Whatinthehell are we argueing about? [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, what he said! (I wish I read your post before
adding my own.)

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
I should add that the NFHS Rules do not allow the game officials to delay the game for A5 to remove his/her jewelry. The rules are quite clear. A5 cannot be in the game while wearing jewelry and A6 cannot enter the game while wearing jewelry.

Also posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
My modus operandi is to have A5 leave the game. I do not like to delay play to allow A5 to make him/herself legal when she knows she was illegal to begin with. Having A5 leave the game until he/she is legal makes more sense than delaying the game. And fortunately A.R. 18 gives the game officials the option to do that if they so desire

So which is it, Mark? Is it a rule that you can't delay the game by allowing the player to remove the jewelry or is it your "modus operandi?"

[rainmaker]

I'm adding this reply to bring this thread forward. Note that I DIDN"T do it correctly. I hope I do better this summer!

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
The game shall be stopped. A5 shall be required to remove the jewelry immediately OR (bold letters my emphasis) be required to leave the game and not return until after removing the jewelry.

Ah the vagueries and ambiguities of human language!

You read the above verbiage and infer that you have two equally acceptable, mutually exclusive options from which you may choose based upon personal preference.

I read the same text and infer an algorithm, a step-by-step guide to solving the problem. The first step is to "require [A5] to remove the jewelry immediately...." If that fails, the second step is to "require [A5] to leave the game...."

The way I read it, I disagree with both your initial and revised interpretations. The rule does not require A5 to leave the game with no other recourse (as has already been conceeded). Nor does A.R. 18 give the referee the option of arbitrarily requiring A5 to leave the game.

Rather, A.R. 18 specifies that the primary remedy is the immediate removal of the jewelry, and that requiring A5 to leave the game is a secondary measure if A5 cannot, or will not, remove the jewelry immediately.

[ChuckElias]

Two things.

First, how did I manage to stay out of this conversation for 4 pages?!?! Even if I don't have anything substantive to say, I usually can throw some stupid comment into the mix.

Second, it's good to see Kelvin's name come up in a thread. Anybody know when he's scheduled to come home?

Chuck

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
First, how did I manage to stay out of this conversation for 4 pages?!?! Even if I don't have anything substantive to say, I usually can throw some stupid comment into the mix.

Well, this was a year ago. I just brought it forward now because it came up in another thread. Were you off in another world last June?

[dblref]

I think Chuck (and the Bosox) are off in another world all the time.