Removing jersey
 

Approx 2 min prior to tip-off, Team B removes their warm-up tops revealing to officials that each player is wearing a white tshirt under a blue game top. (Team A is wearing white.) Officials notify Team B HC, the undershirts must go, whereupon ALL Team B players go to bench area and begin stripping to bare chest to get these shirts off and blue tops only back on. Some are even still struggling to get this task completed as both teams come on floor to line up for National Anthem.
If game has not yet started, are players in violation of 10-3-6 (h), and if so, what is penalty(s).

I believe it is a technical foul (indirect to HC as the players are bench personnel at the time... like a dunk would be pre-game). The game starts with Team A getting two FTs and the ball, with the AP arrow going to Team B.

Almost had this happen yesterday at our MS boys' final. Blue jerseys and black undershirts. Fortunately, when we informed the coach, we quickly recognized the players were about to change on the court and we sent them to the locker room to change before any harm was done.

The MS officials apparently let this go all season, and now that they have experienced officials for their playoffs, the teams are just learning about the new rules. :eek:

I instruct coaches to have their players go in the hallway and do this. I also think each instance is a direct to the kid and indirect to the coach in this instance.

If 3 players dunk each get a T and the coach get's 3 indirects?


Am I wrong?

After I wrote my initial response I thought of that question, and didn't know. So I've stayed back and waited for that clarification. LOL

My guess would be each gets a technical, and the indirects to the HC, but the penalty remains two FTs and the ball to start the game.

I think the penalties add up. The penalty you are thinking of I think is for illegal uniforms. Those don't accumulate.

I'd use 10.4.4B to only assess 1 T.

Just like I'd do if three players all dunked the same ball at the same time.

What's to stop a team from saying "well, we already got a technical foul for his dunk, so I might as well dunk too." And thus making a mockery of the entire rule?

RIF.

Separate dunks <> "everyone taking off the shirt at the same time" and isn't what we are (I am) discussing. The "separate Ts" case is covered elsewhere.

Any official who tells players to change their undershirts without also telling them and their coach, MULTIPLE TIMES, to leave the confines of the court needs to be a better official.

This is not a new rule.

An Idea, Maybe
 

That's the FIRST thing we tell them. Not that we've got a lock on what's the best to do and say it kinda goes like this, after we discover the problem right after the warmups come off and the jump is about to happen:

"Coach, there's no penalty for this, and we've gotta be careful that your players take care of it right now -- not here, but -- in the lockerroom. You said they were legally equipped, but #24 and #35 are not -- those are illegal undershirts. We need -- with no penalty to you -- two new starters while those two go take care of that in the lockerroom. OK?"
Hopefully that combines the elements of tactfulness and expediency.
Haven't had any problems when framed like that.

Exactly.

First game of the season I inform the coach of an illegal undershirt. While I'm still talking to him he signals to his player that the he has to change undershirts who, sitting on the bench with other starters and with the rest of the team huddled around him, immediately starts changing it. Coach goes, "No, not here" and looks at me. At this point the kid is already putting his jersey back on.

I tell the coach just to make sure he complies with the rule moving forward and we go on about our business.

I had similar situation a few years ago with blood on a jersey and handled it the same way. Unless its a repeated offense I'm not issuing a technical foul in this situation. IMO its not intelligently applying the intent and purpose of the rule.

What good does this do?

Also, why not just let the starters go to the hallway (or lockerroom) and change while you wait about 30 extra seconds?

I had it this season the day after our last big discussion about such events (forum jinx). Had the 2 starters run to the locker room and change, then tipped off.

As Adam said, it's not a new rule, but some can't be bothered enforcing it. It makes a mess for others later, including the kids.

If there's time for that to happen without undue delay, I'm for it. I recall discussion about this previously, and respect those who might do it differently. Not so much inclined, however, to delay the game for it. -- just not excited about a coach who follows the rule standing over there with his team being made to wait while other coach who doesn't follow the rule gets no consequences or inconvenience, however minor, out of the deal.
I hate this fashion police stuff.
I guess I also equally hate being asked to participate in a survey where we officials are given the impression that we really are involved in the decision-making process when we don't; it's the coaches whose inclinations and whims on rules changes -- however irrational at times -- are influential. Then they expect us to enforce them. Then they complain when we do. Then we complain about each other when we don't.
Rant over.

I'm assuming that everybody is under the impression that removing the jersey within the visual confines of the playing area is automatically a technical foul, and I'll bet I get heavy criticism for suggesting it shouldn't be automatic, but here goes...

Rule 10-3-6(h) reads "a player shall not:" (section 3) ... "commit an unsporting foul. This includes but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as:" (article 6)... "removing the jersey and/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the playing area." (part h). Unbroken the rule reads: A player shall not commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as removing the jersey and/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the playing area.

The prohibition found in this rule is on committing an unsporting foul. The question we should to ask in the OP is was there anything unsporting about the players removing their jerseys in order to comply with the rule? Hopefully most of us would argue that any behavior performed with the intent of complying with the rules can't be unsporting. The obvious counter argument to this is that the rule explicitly tells us that removing the jersey is an unsporting act, and it is this interpretation that leads to the idea that this is an automatic foul. The problem is that the rule doesn't explicitly say it is an unsporting act. The phrase "such as" indicates items listed are examples of behaviors that if considered unsporting should be penalized.

To support my position, I'll use rule 10-3-5(b) for comparison. Piecing together the language from section, article and part into a single line, we have: A player shall not delay the game by acts such as failing when in possession, to immediately pass the ball to the nearer official when a whistle blows. If we assume failing to comply with the language of part b is automatically a foul (as is done in often done with removing the jersey), then we should all have many more delay of game technical fouls per game than we already do as there are countless times when a player may take a moment to locate one of the officials or throws it to the official that is farther away by mistake. We don't, however, penalize these situations because there is no real delay of game, which is the activity explicitly prohibited by rule. Were the player to hold the ball in order to prevent the subsequent throw-in so that his coach to relay instructions, the game is delayed requiring the appropriate penalty.

In summary, it is my position that if the act of removing the jersey was intended to automatically be a technical foul, there should be a rule 10-3-11, which would read: A player shall not remove his/her jersey and/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the playing area. In this case removing said items would be expressly and explicitly prohibited.

And as a final point, the correct answer to the OP's question is that there is no violation of 10-3-6 as this relates to "Player Technical Fouls". A team doesn't have any players until the game starts. The term used throughout the rules and case books are team members. If we argue that removing the jersey is automatically a technical foul, rule 10-4-1(h) would be the applicable rule as the team members would be considered bench personnel until they are 1 of 5 team members legally on the court.

You know me, I'm not one to argue that all interpretations are static.

To bob's point earlier:
2005-2006 Interpretations
SITUATION 4: During the pregame warm-up, the 12 members of Team A are wearing warm-up tops, but not their team jerseys. Approximately one minute prior to the opening jump ball, the 12 Team A members go to the team bench, remove the warm-up tops and put on the team jerseys. RULING: One technical foul is charged to Team A, and it is also charged indirectly to the head coach. COMMENT: In a situation where similar multiple infractions occur at the same time, it is not the intent of the rules to penalize each individual infraction as a separate technical foul. (3-4-15; 10-4-1h)

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)

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.

A2 did not cut his jersey….:) The player technical rule (and bench tech rule)says players shall not "Commit an unsporting foul. THIS INCLUDES but isn't limited to…
h. removing jersey within visual confines…"

The rule declares that removing jersey IS unsporting…(even when it isn't done with attitude etc.) also says smokeless tobacco is unsporting. They just don't want kids doing it. In reality, using smokeless tobacco isn't really unsporting unless you spit it on someone…:) They don't want you doing it so it is a player T.

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.

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.

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.

Silly me. :o

I was thinking of the tights that we also had to correct during warm ups.

Go wild. Do whatever you want. You've convinced yourself, if no one else.

Perhaps you could, I couldn't.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

Nah, I read all the other stuff later. :)

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.

This!

Maybe...I interpreted it more out of frustration with himself for piling up another stoopid foul. He wasn't really near me when he did it (I was reporting). I caught the tail end of it then addressed it with him.

As I mentioned...my threshold was a repeat performance (by him or any teammates moving forward). As a crew we were split as to whether he deserved it. My gut was that it wouldn't have bettered the game at that point in time and wasn't exactly removing his jersey as one of my partners pointed to. Interesting to see where others come down on this. I've got a longer fuse than most in my ass'n so it's good to hear from others. Thanks for the input.

In retrospect, sending him out for being unready to play might have been a good alternative. Straight to T didn't feel right at that
point.