To make a long story short, Varsity girls, summer league, straight high school rules. One blue-team girl sits the whole game, because she refuses to take out an earring. Last minute of the game, close score, LOTS of fouls, frayed nerves. Blue-team player wants to know why the white-team girl shooting fouls is wearing earrings. AAAUUUGGGHHH!!! She had long hair that wasn't pulled back, and I just plain didn't see them, although in my defense, they were very small and not sparkly. I sent her to take them out. Coach sent in shooter to shoot foul shots. I sent sub back and insist original player return to the floor without earrings, sub cannot shoot foul shots. Player refuses to remove earrings, I refuse to allow sub. We finally agreed that she could shoot her own shots, but then be subbed during the dead ball after she made her second shot, which fortunately she did.

Coach came and apologized after the game. He had really been rather obnoxious, and told me I had handled it well, and it was the right thing to do.

Was it? It got me out of a jam, but what would be the rule about a sub shooting foul shots for someone who hadn't fouled out?

Jewel,
For the refusal to remove the earrings, I would have had the sub shoot the free throws.
My rules say "no jewelry". Since I have adopted "zero tolerance", it is what it is.
I understand that maybe the coach sent in a better shooter, but I cannot allow jewelry on the floor,... unless it is you, my partner.
mick

I agree with Mick,the sub would shoot the freethrows. I also have a zero tolerance policy and remove my jewelry before the game. If my partner wears jewelry, I slip into the conversation my policy and add "that's why I remove my jewelry, I feel we should set a good example." Sometimes my partner gets the hint. If they don't, that is their decision.

LarryS,
I have made a couple of comments to the partners that I think I know.
But when I work with the guy that wears the Byron collar and the zipper wide open in order to show his chest hair and gold necklace, I figger, "Why bother"?
Get in; get done; get out.
mick

Hey Mick - are you talking behind my back again???

You selling a bridge?
 

dj,
Not even a little....
The vision of you doing.... No way!!!
mick

Treat it like you would a player with blood on their person. At least, I would, anyway :)

If Juulie didn't see the earrings earlier, the girl must have intentionally hidden them. I have worked girls games with Juulie and, let me tell you, she is an absolute maniac about no jewelry. In fact, before every game, she conducts a "clippie check."

The only thing I have not known her to check for is belly button studs - among other hidden body piercings which shall remain nameless ;)

The sub should not shoot the FTs. Normally, when a player is improperly equipped, he/she must leave the game immediately. However, during a FT situation when the shooter is the guilty party, clear the lane and have the player shoot his/her shots. Once the final FT is shot, Team B gets the ball for a throw-in, whether the final FT is made or not. You can't take the risk of knowing the earrings are there and allowing her to shoot when the ball could be live if the shot is missed. It's too risky.

That's how you should handle the situation in the future.

Where do you find any backing for this approach? Is this gonna fall under the "elasticity rule" that the R can do whatever he wants???????????

I am asking a question- I thought one of the new changes last year or the year before during pregame.....was to ask the coach if all his players are properly equipped(which would mean no jewelry). I am not saying I would do this, but would a Technical foul be appropriate? Just a question!

AK ref SE

I would say "No," only because case book play 2.4.5B explains this exact sitch, and explicitly states "There is no technical fous assessed."

It is, however, a great excuse to make fun of the coach after the game :D

NO T.

There is absolutly no rule or case to T a player wearing jewelry. I saw a guy do that last year and I wanted to crawl into a hole. The whole coaches' verification is 2 fold, 1) it removes liability for players being properly equipped from you, 2) gives us the leverage to take a player out of the game. The only way you would T a player for this is if it became "unsportsmanlike",and I don't really know how wearing jewelry could become unsportsmanlike.

In this case, I think the rules support having the sub shoot. If the players uni became illegal in any other manner (say, blood), then you would take them out and the sub would shoot, I see no diff in this case. But, being summer ball if it is casual, I might just let her take them out and then shoot.

Tony,doesn't CB play 3.5.5SitA spell it out?It basically says "No penalty invoved.A player simply cannot participate until the illegal items are removed".Are you getting this confused with CB3.4.15Sit,which is the procedure used for untucked shirts?Just wondering.

I can see the logic for the way BktBallRef suggested to handle it and here's why:

First of all, it is clearly NOT a technical foul on player A1 for having jewelry on. The rule directs us to have the player removed from the game. However, to let the coach choose the sub is giving that team an advantage that is allowed during a technical free throw or when a player is injured (or blood).

But I don't see how you can justify clearing the lane and assume that team B would get the rebound after the second shot.

Therefore I think you have no choice but to have A2 sub for A1 immediately and make A1 stay out until the next substitution opportunity after the clock runs.

You're pretty much screwed for not noticing the jewelry earlier, but I must say that I'm not always as vigilant as I should be on seeing hard-to-see jewelry in rec games. I'll use this as a reminder to be more vigilant!

Z