As Adam said, it's not a new rule, but some can't be bothered enforcing it. It makes a mess for others later, including the kids.

If there's time for that to happen without undue delay, I'm for it. I recall discussion about this previously, and respect those who might do it differently. Not so much inclined, however, to delay the game for it. -- just not excited about a coach who follows the rule standing over there with his team being made to wait while other coach who doesn't follow the rule gets no consequences or inconvenience, however minor, out of the deal.
I hate this fashion police stuff.
I guess I also equally hate being asked to participate in a survey where we officials are given the impression that we really are involved in the decision-making process when we don't; it's the coaches whose inclinations and whims on rules changes -- however irrational at times -- are influential. Then they expect us to enforce them. Then they complain when we do. Then we complain about each other when we don't.
Rant over.

I'm assuming that everybody is under the impression that removing the jersey within the visual confines of the playing area is automatically a technical foul, and I'll bet I get heavy criticism for suggesting it shouldn't be automatic, but here goes...

Rule 10-3-6(h) reads "a player shall not:" (section 3) ... "commit an unsporting foul. This includes but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as:" (article 6)... "removing the jersey and/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the playing area." (part h). Unbroken the rule reads: A player shall not commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as removing the jersey and/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the playing area.

The prohibition found in this rule is on committing an unsporting foul. The question we should to ask in the OP is was there anything unsporting about the players removing their jerseys in order to comply with the rule? Hopefully most of us would argue that any behavior performed with the intent of complying with the rules can't be unsporting. The obvious counter argument to this is that the rule explicitly tells us that removing the jersey is an unsporting act, and it is this interpretation that leads to the idea that this is an automatic foul. The problem is that the rule doesn't explicitly say it is an unsporting act. The phrase "such as" indicates items listed are examples of behaviors that if considered unsporting should be penalized.

To support my position, I'll use rule 10-3-5(b) for comparison. Piecing together the language from section, article and part into a single line, we have: A player shall not delay the game by acts such as failing when in possession, to immediately pass the ball to the nearer official when a whistle blows. If we assume failing to comply with the language of part b is automatically a foul (as is done in often done with removing the jersey), then we should all have many more delay of game technical fouls per game than we already do as there are countless times when a player may take a moment to locate one of the officials or throws it to the official that is farther away by mistake. We don't, however, penalize these situations because there is no real delay of game, which is the activity explicitly prohibited by rule. Were the player to hold the ball in order to prevent the subsequent throw-in so that his coach to relay instructions, the game is delayed requiring the appropriate penalty.

In summary, it is my position that if the act of removing the jersey was intended to automatically be a technical foul, there should be a rule 10-3-11, which would read: A player shall not remove his/her jersey and/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the playing area. In this case removing said items would be expressly and explicitly prohibited.

And as a final point, the correct answer to the OP's question is that there is no violation of 10-3-6 as this relates to "Player Technical Fouls". A team doesn't have any players until the game starts. The term used throughout the rules and case books are team members. If we argue that removing the jersey is automatically a technical foul, rule 10-4-1(h) would be the applicable rule as the team members would be considered bench personnel until they are 1 of 5 team members legally on the court.

You know me, I'm not one to argue that all interpretations are static.

To bob's point earlier:
2005-2006 Interpretations
SITUATION 4: During the pregame warm-up, the 12 members of Team A are wearing warm-up tops, but not their team jerseys. Approximately one minute prior to the opening jump ball, the 12 Team A members go to the team bench, remove the warm-up tops and put on the team jerseys. RULING: One technical foul is charged to Team A, and it is also charged indirectly to the head coach. COMMENT: In a situation where similar multiple infractions occur at the same time, it is not the intent of the rules to penalize each individual infraction as a separate technical foul. (3-4-15; 10-4-1h)

On the point that it's not an automatic technical foul:
Same year:
SITUATION 5: A1 is directed to leave the game with a blood-saturated jersey. While at the team bench area, he/she removes the jersey and changes into a clean, spare jersey. RULING: A1 is assessed a technical foul. Team B is awarded two free throws and the ball for a division line throw-in. COMMENT: The uniform rule is intended to be applied in all situations. It is not unreasonable to expect team members to leave the playing area to change uniforms. (3-4-15; 10-4-1h)

Using this interpretation, what is the appropriate action for the following situation: While A1 is dribbling the ball upcourt following a made basket by B, A2 has a sudden cardiac and falls to the floor. The team trainer or other medical personnel determines that use of an AED is required and cuts the jersey off of A2 in order to appropriately utilize the AED.

If you can honestly say that you would assess a technical foul to A2 and resume play with 2 FTs by B and possession to B at the half court opposite the table, I'll admit defeat.

non sequitur . . . in your example the player did not remove his jersey so the player cannot have committed an offense . . . while your interpretation is marginally compatable with the language of the rule book, it is wholly at odds with the case book . . . depending on the level of the game, that may not matter (heck, in our MS games, mismatched undershirts are more common than legal ones), but you are disregarding the case book in doing so. Whether that is appropriate in the level of games you referee in your area, I'm in no position to say.

A2 did not cut his jersey….:) The player technical rule (and bench tech rule)says players shall not "Commit an unsporting foul. THIS INCLUDES but isn't limited to…
h. removing jersey within visual confines…"

The rule declares that removing jersey IS unsporting…(even when it isn't done with attitude etc.) also says smokeless tobacco is unsporting. They just don't want kids doing it. In reality, using smokeless tobacco isn't really unsporting unless you spit it on someone…:) They don't want you doing it so it is a player T.

So in the actual case book play regarding the blood-saturated jersey, had the team trainer removed A1's jersey, there would be no penalty. And in the OP, had A1 removed A2's jersey and A2 removed A3's jersey and so forth, there is no penalty?

Additionally, the case book plays regarding removing the jersey are found within the section related to technical fouls due to unsporting acts, and therefore indicate to me that removing the jerseys in the cases provided should be deemed unsporting acts. I didn't find the OP's situation in the case book, and I personally don't find the act to be unsporting in OP's situation. If you do feel it should universally be considered an unsporting act, then I would absolutely support your decision to call it a technical foul each and every time it happens.

The case book play regarding Team A removing the warm up tops and putting on their jerseys, while similar to the OP's situation, is not the same. In the the case provided, they didn't remove their jerseys in the visual confines of the court (they didn't have jerseys on to remove). Team A failed to wear the appropriate jerseys and was penalized as such, which is why only 1 technical foul was appropriate in that case. The act of removing the jersey is an individual act. There is no support in either the rule or case book for penalizing the team with only 1 technical foul should 2, 4 or 10 players removing their jerseys simultaneously.

Actually, there is.

10.4.4 Situation B Ruling: In a situation where similar multiple infractions occur, it is not the intent of the rules to penalize each individual infraction as a separate technical foul.

I don't think we can apply that case ruling universally, otherwise we could justify the following rulings...

A1 is fouled by B1 and is upset by the severity of the foul. A1 pushes B1 to the ground where A2, A3 and A4 begin punching B1. As A2, A3 and A4 have committed similar, multiple infractions, only 1 technical foul is warranted.

or

A1 is fouled by B1. Upset with the call, B1, B2 and B3 line up and simultaneously make an obscene gesture toward the official. As B1, B2 and B3 have committed similar, multiple infractions, only 1 technical is warranted.

The intent of the only charge 1 technical foul comment is for violations that occur within the context of being a team and not for unsporting acts.

Silly me. :o

I was thinking of the tights that we also had to correct during warm ups.

Go wild. Do whatever you want. You've convinced yourself, if no one else.

Perhaps you could, I couldn't.

Wow...I can't argue with that. Is there a case play that supports that?

I honestly didn't expect to change anyone's mind, but I do think you missed my intent. The point of my whole discourse is to say that the act of removing the jersey must be judged to be an unsporting act in order to penalize it with a technical foul based on the way the rule is written. If we agree with that premise, then the only way that the act of removing the jersey always results in a technical foul is if it is always an unsporting act. If you can identify an instance where removing the jersey is not an unsporting act, then you can't say that removing the jersey is automatically a technical foul.

I'm making my argument in a very legalistic, logical and theoretical manner in order to point out what, in my opinion, is a flaw in rules and case books. The books suggest that removing the jersey is an unsporting act, when there is nothing inherently unsporting about it. Removing the jersey to show displeasure would be an unsporting act. Removing the jersey in celebration or to taunt an opponent would be an unsporting act. I have difficulty saying that removing the jersey in order to comply with another rule is an unsporting act.

In the end, I do believe the intent is to penalize removing the jersey within the visual confines of the court under any circumstances with a technical foul. I just feel like it shouldn't be listed within the rule regarding unsporting acts. I'm also fortunate enough to have never had someone remove his/her jersey during a game I've been involved in, so I haven't had to reconcile this issue for my feelings. I've had a few coaches remove ties or jackets, but no shirts, jerseys or shorts.