Removing jersey

[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!