Question re: Jurisdiction

[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.

[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?

[Juulie Downs]

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.

No one would ever even THINK of blaming you, Nevada! Why is your conscience even an issue....

Ah, geez, I said I wasn't going to flame anyone, and it's only the 14th of Jan and you've already got my hair curling out like my finger's in an electrical socket...

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.

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.

But when the local governing authority hasn't yet made a ruling...

We get to use our best judgment. Since this rule is aimed at sportsmanship and expressions of disgust or hostility, I think it's perfectly reasonable, and not even remotely pussilanimous to judge that the kid is just in a hurry to get to his job, or is simply trying to avoid the locker room problems, or doesn't know that there's a problem, and is just getting on with his life. None of those situations have anything to do with sportsmanship, and the game is over, and everyone is moving on with their lives. Why throw the bus into reverse, strip the gears, run over a couple or twenty fans, and ruin the entire evening for everyone, if the so-called problem (unsportsmanlike behavior) doesn't even exist?