Removing jersey

[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.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Perhaps you could, I couldn't.

I wouldn't apply the note to 10.4.4 Sit B universally and especially not to those situation.

[Adam]

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.

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

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.

This!