Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP
I "have" tatoos, and they are not "worn" - they are "displayed." (And not when officiating.) 
Theoretically here (reaching - reach with me), could a vulgar tattoo not possibly be construed/judged to be an offense punishable by a flagrant technical foul? For instance, one that includes the bad word? (-I've seen one in university intramurals.) - Although, I suppose it would go directly against the previously mentioned repeal of the pertinent NFHS rule.
Not that I'm wanting to do this, just stirring things.  |
If a tatoo was vulgar or offensive I would require it to be covered up and would use the rule as being inappropriate