The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2015, 08:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 561
Send a message via AIM to BoomerSooner
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
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.
__________________
My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2015, 08:57pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 12, 2015, 10:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomerSooner View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 13, 2015, 01:18am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 561
Send a message via AIM to BoomerSooner
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.
__________________
My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 13, 2015, 03:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 179
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.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 13, 2015, 08:01am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 561
Send a message via AIM to BoomerSooner
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blindolbat View Post
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.
__________________
My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 13, 2015, 09:53am
Often wrong never n doubt
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blindolbat View Post
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.
Especially since the rules are written to apply to both genders.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 13, 2015, 10:52am
Official & Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,379
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.
__________________
Calling it both ways...since 1999
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 13, 2015, 11:10am
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Zebra View Post
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.
3.3.5A gives what might be an alternative in similar, though not identical, sitch, with A1 pulling out his jersey in frustration on the way to the FT line: "...A1 will be directed to put the jersey in the pants...and must leave the game immediately...a charged time-out by Team A does not alter the requirement for A1 to leave the game." Though the "covered his face in frustration" might go beyond this comparatively mild case and border on the unsporting. Maybe a HTBT?

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?
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call

Last edited by Freddy; Fri Feb 13, 2015 at 11:14am.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 13, 2015, 11:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Zebra View Post
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.
Yes I would. I had the same thing happen in my game. He did that in a show of disrespect. If you don't T here then what is your threshold?
__________________
in OS I trust
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 13, 2015, 11:29am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
3.3.5A gives what might be an alternative in similar, though not identical, sitch, with A1 pulling out his jersey in frustration on the way to the FT line: "...A1 will be directed to put the jersey in the pants...and must leave the game immediately...a charged time-out by Team A does not alter the requirement for A1 to leave the game." Though the "covered his face in frustration" might go beyond this comparatively mild case and border on the unsporting. Maybe a HTBT?

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?
You can't use this to compete with the other interp. He's not removing his jersey, he's untucking it.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 13, 2015, 12:03pm
This IS My Social Life
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at L, T, or C
Posts: 2,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
You can't use this to compete with the other interp. He's not removing his jersey, he's untucking it.
Correct. My response was in regards to BZ's later sitch. Didn't mean to hijack the thread.
__________________
Making Every Effort to Be in the Right Place at the Right Time, Looking at the Right Thing to Make the Right Call
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 13, 2015, 12:16pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddy View Post
Correct. My response was in regards to BZ's later sitch. Didn't mean to hijack the thread.
Nah, I read all the other stuff later.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 13, 2015, 12:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomerSooner View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Fri Feb 13, 2015, 12:38pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by so cal lurker View Post
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!
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Removing the helmet mtridge Football 2 Mon Aug 27, 2012 09:28am
Removing a shirt Clark Kent Basketball 1 Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:09pm
Removing Patches OverAndBack Football 25 Tue Feb 05, 2008 11:42pm
removing helmet yankeesfan Football 2 Sun Sep 17, 2006 09:55pm
Removing the pitcher David Emerling Baseball 14 Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:53am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:48am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1