Question re: Jurisdiction

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think I'm too cowardly to make that call.

That's funny. I'm glad that everyone knows what my position is.

Since JR started this thread, Rulz rules.

2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 3: Team A is leading 62-60 when the horn sounds to end the game. A1 then removes his/her jersey near the team bench (a) before the officials leave the visual confines of the playing area; or (b) after the officials leave the visual confines of the playing area. RULING: In (a), A1 is assessed a technical foul. Team B is awarded two free throws; if both are successful, overtime will be played. In (b), since the officials' jurisdiction has ended, no penalty is assessed. (3-4-15; 2-2-4; 10-4-1h)

[Juulie Downs]

1. I thought he was a player from the previous game?

2. I was looking the other way?

3. Although I saw him, I thought he was outside the visual confines of the playing area?

4. Yes, Nevada, I'm more interested in advancing my career and making the big bucks, than I am in standing firm on principle. Self-interest over righteousness every time!!

[Adam]

This situation is null and void in MA, right?

[Welpe]

I didn't see it because I was too busy taking my shirt off. That'll show 'em!

[just another ref]

That "intent and purpose of the rules" thing is troublesome to me on this one.
Somebody tell me, in a nutshell, what the intent and purpose of this rule is.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's funny. I'm glad that everyone knows what my position is.

Since JR started this thread, Rulz rules.

2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 3: Team A is leading 62-60 when the horn sounds to end the game. A1 then removes his/her jersey near the team bench (a) before the officials leave the visual confines of the playing area; or (b) after the officials leave the visual confines of the playing area. RULING: In (a), A1 is assessed a technical foul. Team B is awarded two free throws; if both are successful, overtime will be played. In (b), since the officials' jurisdiction has ended, no penalty is assessed. (3-4-15; 2-2-4; 10-4-1h)

Knowing your position means you're predictable.

I'm in the locker room.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

That "intent and purpose of the rules" thing is troublesome to me on this one.
Somebody tell me, in a nutshell, what the intent and purpose of this rule is.

Sure, no problem. Here it is straight from the NFHS.

COMMENTS ON THE 2005-06 RULES REVISIONS

JERSEYS/PANTS/SKIRTS PROHIBITED FROM BEING REMOVED (3-4-15, 10-3-7h, 10-4-1h): A team member is prohibited from removing his/her jersey and/or pants/skirt within the confines of the playing area. The penalty is a technical foul. The former uniform rule didn't require team members to actually wear the team uniform. This addition also addresses a growing behavioral concern of players removing their jerseys to demonstrate frustration or anger and as a means of attracting individual attention. The rule is intended to be applied in all situations - even when a player must change uniforms due to blood or other unusual circumstances. It is not unreasonable to expect team members to go to their locker rooms to change their jerseys.

As you can plainly see the situation posed is exactly that of the intent of rule-writers. Notwithstanding the comments of those who would look the other way because they think that they know better than those who sit on the committee or believe that improper enforcement will advance their officiating careers.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Sure, no problem. Here it is straight from the NFHS.

COMMENTS ON THE 2005-06 RULES REVISIONS

JERSEYS/PANTS/SKIRTS PROHIBITED FROM BEING REMOVED (3-4-15, 10-3-7h, 10-4-1h): A team member is prohibited from removing his/her jersey and/or pants/skirt within the confines of the playing area. The penalty is a technical foul. The former uniform rule didn't require team members to actually wear the team uniform. This addition also addresses a growing behavioral concern of players removing their jerseys to demonstrate frustration or anger and as a means of attracting individual attention. The rule is intended to be applied in all situations - even when a player must change uniforms due to blood or other unusual circumstances. It is not unreasonable to expect team members to go to their locker rooms to change their jerseys.

As you can plainly see the situation posed is exactly that of the intent of rule-writers. Notwithstanding the comments of those who would look the other way because they think that they know better than those who sit on the committee or believe that improper enforcement will advance their officiating careers.

I had, of course, seen this before, but not lately. I thought this is what the rule was all about. Count me as one who thinks he knows better than the committee if they think this is a good rule when broadly applied to every situation. This is even more dangerous because it has no definite end. Around here it is not uncommon for officials not to leave the court at all when another game is to follow.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I had, of course, seen this before, but not lately. I thought this is what the rule was all about. Count me as one who thinks he knows better than the committee if they think this is a good rule when broadly applied to every situation. This is even more dangerous because it has no definite end.

Well then okay, do as you believe best. My conscience will be clear that I have done all that I could to steer you down the proper path.

I have advised you of the rule. I have given you the NFHS description of its intent and purpose from when it was introduced. I have even given you a specific case play ruling for the given situation, which explicitly instructs the official what to call.

If you elect to handle this differently, then that's totally up to you.

The definite end is when the officials leave the visual confines. That's in the rules too.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Around here it is not uncommon for officials not to leave the court at all when another game is to follow.

This is not a fair criticism because the NFHS rules are written to cover just single games, not multiple games in succession.

The local governing authority for those games would have to make a ruling as to how to handle your scenario. Something such as when the clock starts for the pre-game warm-up for the next contest or when the new teams take the floor, etc.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is not a fair criticism because the NFHS rules are written to cover just single games, not multiple games in succession.

I'm fairly sure the Fed knows that on most nights two games are being played in the same gym back-to-back (JV/V, Fresh/Soph, etc.).


Side bar:
So if a coach places one foot outside the coaching box, you going to call a technical foul, correct?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Well then okay, do as you believe best. My conscience will be clear that I have done all that I could to steer you down the proper path.

I have advised you of the rule. I have given you the NFHS description of its intent and purpose from when it was introduced. I have even given you a specific case play ruling for the given situation, which explicitly instructs the official what to call.

If you elect to handle this differently, then that's totally up to you.

You will note I never said how I would handle it. I merely said I consider it a big problem that a rule with potentially huge consequences is so broadly worded.

The definite end is when the officials leave the visual confines. That's in the rules too.

And when the officials might leave such confines is definitely not definite.

This is not a fair criticism because the NFHS rules are written to cover just single games, not multiple games in succession.

This is exactly why it is a fair criticism, because I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I have called a single game, rather than multiple games, which are most often in succession.

The local governing authority for those games would have to make a ruling as to how to handle your scenario. Something such as when the clock starts for the pre-game warm-up for the next contest or when the new teams take the floor, etc.

Can you give an example of a local governing authority addressing a single rule which is as obscure as this one?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

i'm fairly sure the fed knows that on most nights two games are being played in the same gym back-to-back (jv/v, fresh/soph, etc.).


Side bar:
So if a coach places one foot outside the coaching box, you going to call a technical foul, correct?

+1

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Side bar:
So if a coach places one foot outside the coaching box, you going to call a technical foul, correct?

This is apples v oranges.

What is the difference when a player removes jersey in OP and a player/coach acting unsporting after the final horn?

You haven't left the visual confines in either situation. How will you handle it?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by truerookie

What is the difference when a player removes jersey in OP and a player/coach acting unsporting after the final horn?

Acting unsporting is one thing.

Removing the jersey is another.

A player removing his jersey can conceivably be done in an unsporting manner, but can also be conceivably done to let the player's little brother wear it.

Yet in Nevada each should be punished with a technical foul.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I'm fairly sure the Fed knows that on most nights two games are being played in the same gym back-to-back (JV/V, Fresh/Soph, etc.).

Yep, but the assumption is either that different officials are coming out for the next contest or that the crew will leave the visual confines of the playing area following the first game and then return for the second.

Originally Posted by just another ref

This is exactly why it is a fair criticism, because I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I have called a single game, rather than multiple games, which are most often in succession.

And if you exited and then returned as noted above this wouldn't be an issue. The NFHS assumption is that the official actually do leave the gym when the game finishes. If they don't, then they aren't following the proper protocol and are causing the difficulty, not the NFHS rule.

Originally Posted by just another ref

Yet in Nevada any location abiding by NFHS rules both should be punished with a technical foul.

Fixed it for ya.