|
|||
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
Especially since the rules are written to apply to both genders.
|
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
in OS I trust |
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
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 |