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

I don't know whether you can justify doing it if the FT shooter has their shirt untucked or pants too low,either-but the rules say that you clear the lane and give the ball to B OOB after the last FT.Thats CB3.4.15Situation that I mentioned above.That is covered under "uniforms" in the rulebook.Jewelry is covered in a different section-"player equipment". Maybe that's why they tell us to handle the two situations differently-one is a fashion item and the other one is a safety issue.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 5th, 2002 at 04:34 PM]

Thanks Brian and DAVRAPP-

I did not have my books in front of me.....And I had talked with a few people in passing and the T question arose!
THanks for the references and the discussion on this

AK ref SE

Juulie - here's what I would have done.

A1 is about to shoot free throws. A1 is discovered to be wearing earrings. I would make A1 leave to remove the earrings and wait for her. If she refuses to remove them, she is out of the game and her sub can shoot. However, I would not let A1 reenter the game at all, even if she then removes the earrings because that would give an advantage to team A.

If the howler monkey complains, stick a banana in his yap and scratch him behind his ear. He'll calm down.

BTW - if you still need to give up games because of your trip to Metricslovakia, let me know. Thanks.

I am using your play Mark P. for my posting. All of the rules codes (NFHS/NCAA, NBA/WNBA, and FIBA) prohibit the wearing of jewelry. The prohibition is a safety concern.

When a player is found wearing jewelry in a game played using NFHS/NCAA rules, the player must be substituted for immediately. In Mark's play the substitute for A1 will shoot the free throws and A1 can return to the game at the first opportunity to substitute after the clock has started, assuming that A1 is no longer wearing jewelry.

It is not a technical foul for playing while wearing jewelry. It is should also be remembered that an official cannot make a player remove his/her jewelry, only prohibit a player from playing while wearing jewelry. But a player can be charged with a technical foul in connection with wearing jewelry. A few years back in the Ohio AAU Girls 18U Championship Tournament (NCAA Women's Rules), I noticed a girl wearing earrings during the pre-game warm-ups; she had her hair pulled back. I reminded her that she could not wear jewelry and play at the same time. Once the game started I did not pay attention to her because she no longer was wearing her hair pulled back. After a time-out in the second half, I was about to hand her the ball for the throw-in when she pulled her hair back and there were bandaids over her ear lobs where the earrings were. I asked her what were under the bandaids and she told me she was covering her earrings with them. I had her replaced immediately under the jewelry rule and charged her with a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct for trying to hide the earrings under the bandaids. The technical foul was not for wearing earrings but for the unsportsmanlike act of trying to conceal them after being told before the game that she could not play and wear the earrings at the same time.

No, I'm not getting it confused. I would simply handle it the same way. A player is not allowed to play with an untucked jersey. A player is not allowed to play while wearing jewelry. 3.4.15 allows you to remove the players from the lane, have A1 shoot the FTs, and then five the ball to B.

Considering everything involved, this is the best answer, I believe. A1 is allowed to shoot her FTs but is somewhat penalized by not having an opportunity to rebound if the last shot is missed. But that's certainly better than allowing A to gain advantage by sending in their best FT shooter. I see no difference in the uniform issue verses the jewelry issue in this situation.

Here's 3.4.15 for those who haven't previously read it.

B1 fouls A1. Just before A1 goes to the line for a one-and-one, the official observes: (a) A1 either pulls the shirt out of his/her pants; or (b) that A1's pants are partially below the hips.

Ruling: In both (a) and (b), A1 will be directed to put the shirt in the pants or pull up the pants and must leave the game immediately following his/her last free throw(s). The lane is cleared and it will be B's ball for a throw-in, whether or not the last free throw is successful.

Hmmm....no one has ever told me that. In both cases, the player is not properly equipped. I don't see a difference. JMHO

I am using your play Mark P. for my posting. All of the rules codes (NFHS/NCAA, NBA/WNBA, and FIBA) prohibit the wearing of jewelry. The prohibition is a safety concern.

When a player is found wearing jewelry in a game played using NFHS/NCAA rules, the player must be substituted for immediately.

Where is this in NF? All I can find is case 3.5.5.A which says a substitute cannot enter with jewelry and rule 3.5.2 which prohibits players from player with jewelry. I see nothing that says the player must be substituted for. It is my understanding that an official may direct the player to remove the jewelry and continue playing, especially if the jewelry is discovered during a dead ball. If there is a specific rule that says you cannot do this, please post it. Thanks.

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!

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 6th, 2002 at 04:04 AM]

This is a bit of a stretch isn't it? Did you know for a fact that she purposly covered them with band-aids to avoid taking them out to thumb her nose at the rule, or was just ignorant of the rule? I still run into a lot of coaches (especially in club, JO, AAU, etc.) who think the old band-aid trick is OK. Some of these weekend warriors really don't know that it is illegal. I think this falls under the "looking for trouble" category.

Run 'em out, get a sub, let the coach handle it from there.

Mark -- The reason I didn't see the earrings before the game was that the player didn't arrive until late into the second quarter. When she played, she left her long thick hair and it covered up the earrings.

There were only 41 seconds left and A1 had already indicated that she wasn't going to take them out, so I didn't have to worry about letting her back in, thank goodness. The howler monkey was Ken Johnson! who was late getting to the game. The coach I had talked to before the game was someone else whose name I can't remember. He never said a word during the whole discussion, which annoyed me. Although I saw him explaining to Ken later, which I suppose is why Ken came over after the game and apologized.

I was so exhausted Tuesday evening, that I hadn't fully processed this incident, but yesterday, I realized how much better I'd handled it than I would have a year ago. Y'all would have been proud of the way I stood up to this coach who is the organizer of this league, and has a lot of clout. I never lost my temper, but I stuck to my guns, and managed to say the right thing to get him to back down gracefully. And he did apologize later. I feel like I've taken a huge step forward!

Next time, I'll either let the sub shoot, with the stipulation that A1 not return to the game; or I'll clear the lane, let A1 shoot and then let the sub in.

Juulie - I'm surprised at Ken. He knows better than that. Although I'm not surprised he apologized later. He is a class act.

NFHS R3-S5-A2 prohibits a player from wearing jewelry while playing. The officials do not have the authority to order a player to remover his/her jewelry and the officials should never (sorry, J. Dallas Shirley) instruct or order a player to remove his/her jewelry. When a player is found to be wearing jewelry while playing, the player must leave the game and cannot return until he/she is in compliance with R3-S5-A2. It is a coach's responsibility to make sure that his players are in compliance with R3-S5-A2, not the officials.

The bandaid/tape situation has three scenarios:

1) The official discovers before the game that A1 is wearing an earring. At this point, the official should inform that player that the wearing of jewelry is prohibited and that if A1 wants to continue warming up (NFHS) or to play in the game (NFHS/NCAA) he/she must remove the jewelry. The official must be sure that he does not order A1 to remove his/her jewelry. The game officials do not have the authority to order a A1 to remove his/her jewelry.

2) The official discovers before the game that A1 is covering an earring with a bandaid/tape. At this point, the official should inform that player that the wearing of jewelry is prohibited and that if A1 wants to continue warming up (NFHS) or to play in the game (NFHS/NCAA) he/she must remove the jewelry. The official must be sure that he does not order A1 to remove his/her jewelry. The game officials do not have the authority to order a A1 to remove his/her jewelry.

3) The official discovers during the game that A1 is covering earrings with a bandaid/tape. The official did not know that A1 was wearing earrings until it was discovered during the game. A1 must leave the game immediately and cannot play until he/she is in compliance with the no jewelry rule.

In either (1) or (2) if A1 is found to be playing while wearing jewelry that is covered by a bandaid/tape, then a technical foul is warranted for unsportsmanlike conduct. A1 had been informed that wearing jewelry was prohibited and instead tried to use deception to circumvent the rules. A1 will still have to leave the game until he/she is in compliance with the no jewelry rule.

In (3) if A1 is later found to be playing with earrings that are covered with a bandaid/tape, he/she would be subject to the same technical foul penalty as in (1) and (2).

Remember, A1's coach is responsible for A1 complying with the no jewelry rule, not the game officials.

Mark, all you've done here is wrap many more words around
your opinion. Some of us do not agree that this is an
unsportsman-like conduct T. Simply tell her to leave &
tell the coach that covering jewelry with a bandaide is not
good enough.

<b>Pertaining to earrings, bandaids, and T's...</b>

This has been a good thread. About half of the girl's games I did last year involved jewelry. However, I never had a girl fail to comply.

What would I do if a girl failed to comply after I had told her? I didn't really think of this until now, but I'm leaning towards siding with DeNucci, Sr. First of all, if I tell a player they cannot play with earrings, I also always tell the coach. There really is no excuse for the player to return to the floor with the earrings still in, other than ignoring my instruction. I believe a 'T' is warranted in this situation, and then they are likely to never do it again.

BTW, after catching a boy with an earring halfway through a game last year, I realized I needed to be just as dilligent checking the guys' ears!

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...

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?

Of course I know where you're coming from,Tony--common sense.I'd also bet that you'd never(sorry,J.Dallas Shirley):D 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!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

...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 ;) )

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee Quote: ...never(sorry,J.Dallas Shirley):D... Excuse me, I have to wipe the coffee off my monitor...:D Quote: ...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 ;) )

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?

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

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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..

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.

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???

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.

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.

No gray
 

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

Re: No gray
 

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Quote: 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.

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref Quote: Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Quote: 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. 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?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Quote: Originally posted by Dan_ref Quote: Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Quote: 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. 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?

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.

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?:confused:

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

Quote:

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.

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?:confused: [/B][/QUOTE]

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

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?" :(

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!

Say what?
 

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.

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

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?

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

So, mick, have you been doing lots of one-man games lately? :D

My Byron collar shirts have become shoe bags.
I don't have enough hair on my chest to see.
I don't even wear my 33-yr.-old wedding ring.
...And basketball season ended in March.
It's Baseball and Softball for me; NL rules include jewelry.
mick

:)

My Byron collar shirts are still in very good condition (that is why I buy Cliff Keen shirts) and I still wear them for CYO, men's recreational and summer leagues, and summer team camps at the local colleges. I love the V-neck shirts, but why through out good shirts that still can be worn in less than formal games.