Removing jersey

[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!