Removing jersey

[Adam]

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)

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

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.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

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.

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

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.

[BoomerSooner]

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

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.

Perhaps you could, I couldn't.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

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.

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

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

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

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.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

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.

You are trying to apply overly cramped legalisitc reasoning to a document that isn't written to be analyzed that way. It is not written by lawyers or legislators (who do a good job of botching things even with ostensible expertise), but by coaches. Coming up with bizarre and unlikely hypotheticals doesnt support your decision to not issue a T that is clearly intended by the ruleset. Go ahead and make that decision, but it just isn't supported . . . and throwing in a hypothetical scenario about alien abduction or the gym burning down doesn't change anything.

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.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

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.

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Adam

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)

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

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.

Do you think that clause applies to your play?

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Do you think that clause applies to your play?

No I don't think it should apply in my situation, however the prior statement in the comment doesn't give any leeway ("the uniform rule is intended to be applied in all situations").

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.

[Blindolbat]

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.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Blindolbat

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.

I agree that is one of their intents. I think the issue started when kids would get disqualified and remove their jerseys in disgust and it expanded to be applied to all situations in order to avoid having shirtless kids running around due to modesty concerns. The interesting issue with this is that even if their only intent was to avoid having bare chested players visible, the rule still applicable to the player that removes his/her jersey but has an undershirt on beneath the jersey. The penalty is for removing the jersey not the partial nudity.

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.