Quote:
|
The only real debate should be whether a 10 year old interp still applies. Whether the two situations are sufficiently different to allow us to deviate is not really debatable.
If the NFHS wants us to call the T when a player removes his jersey at the bench due to blood (something not his fault), it seems obvious that they want the same when he removes it to fix an equipment issue that is entirely his fault. Similarly, the example of 12 guys intentionally changing clothes at the bench is far worse than three doing it to fix something they likely thought they'd get away with. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
In my post, I was using an extreme example to support the position that removing the jersey isn't always in all cases an unsporting act. This example was more sufficiently invalidated by So Cal Lurker's point that the player didn't remove the jersey, however I countered by suggesting that A1 could remove A2's jersey without penalty. This was an outlandish example used to show a loop hole in the rule with the ultimate intention of asking would we rather have players undressing each other or just acknowledge that there are situations where removing one's jersey is not an unsporting act. I've devised a less extreme example that circumvents So Cal's counter-point and involves a player removing his/her jersey. During a timeout, A1 becomes ill and vomits on A2's jersey. A2 immediately removes his jersey and vacates the area in route to the locker room due to the intense smell causing him to become nauseated. Should A2 be assessed a technical foul? For the sake of clarity, the entire point of my ramblings is to get to the root issue, which is to determine which of the following statements applies to this situation and what is the best fix? 1. The rule book's intent is that removing one's jersey is by definition an unsporting act in all situations and that no judgement of intent or consideration of the circumstances is required in the assessment of the play or the enforcement of the penalty. The conflict here is with the definition of unsporting. 2. The rule book's intent is to penalize removing one's jersey when it is an unsporting act. The conflict here is whether or not an official is granted the capacity of judge removing the jersey to not be an unsporting act. 3. The rule book's intent is that removing one's jersey should be penalized with technical foul independent of whether the act is unsporting or not. The conflict here is that the rule is found within the section regarding unsporting acts. |
I just think they don't want a bunch of 12-17 yr olds getting partially nude in front of 100's of strangers regardless of why they are taking off their clothes.
|
Quote:
In any case, my position remains that if they don't want want jerseys removed within the visual confines of the court, make it explicitly prohibited and not imply that it is somehow inherently unsporting by placing it within rule 10-3-6. For what it's worth, I don't think the issue of tobacco use belongs under the unsporting umbrella either. I'm not supporting kids or coaches smoking or dipping during games, but as was pointed out Big Cat, these acts typically wouldn't be considered unsporting. |
Quote:
|
Had a somewhat similar situation last night. Player V22 was called for a hand check and (surprise) disagreed. He pulled out the front of his jersey and covered his face in frustration. One of my partners wanted to whack him. I disagreed and said the rule pertains to REMOVING the jersey. I think we would have been justified in whacking him for unsporting behavior but I opted to tell him to tuck it back in during the ensuing free throw and not pull it out again or I would whack him. It was early in a regional playoff game. He wasn't a problem the rest of the night.
Would anyone whack him? He eventually fouled out in the 4th Q. |
Quote:
Of course, I'm sure some will propose their own personally preferred and painfully contrived solution. It's getting kinda like the Biblical period around the time of the Old Testament judges, "Everyone is doing what is right in their own eyes", in spite of established directives. Anyway, it doesn't seem that going straight to an unsporting T is the only alternative for us. Does that offer a correct and reasonable choice? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Do you really think that it is news that the rule book is poorly written in many places (not to mention an organizational disaster)? -- it is a document not merely written by committee, but by committees over time. Overly legalistic parsing of language rarely makes such a document intelligible; reading the rules in concert with the official case plays does. And the official case plays make abunduntly clear that the expected consequence of changing a shirt at the bench is a T. Do I think it is a stupid rule? Yes. (I wonder if it arose from an incident in a girl's game or games, and they needed a uni-sex rule, but I digress.) We can construct extreme examples of scenarios in which, as referees, we might choose not to see something . . . but the plain vanilla scenario is a very, very simple call. Over and out. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54am. |