Thread: Glasses
View Single Post
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Mar 07, 2007, 11:01pm
jmaellis jmaellis is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
That is the explanation that I got years ago from a very experienced referee.

Note that the rules are quite specific on what can be put in the hair.
3-5-3 . . . Sweatbands, headwear and head decorations must meet the following guidelines:
a. Headbands and sweatbands must be white or similar in color to the torso of the jersey and must be the same color for each item and all participants. Only one item is permitted on the head and on each wrist. Items must be moisture-absorbing, nonabrasive and unadorned (except for logo, see 3-6).
b. Headbands may be a maximum of 2 inches (except for logo, see 3-6).
c. Sweatbands must be worn below the elbow and may be a maximum of 4 inches (except for logo, see 3-6).
d. Rubber/cloth (elastic) bands may be used to control hair.
e. Head decorations, except those specified above, are prohibited.

(with the religious exceptions)

Basically, when looking at equipment and apparel which is not specifically prohibited by the rules, you should focus on the equipment itself – not how it might be improperly used, or possibly injure someone in the occurrence of some far-fetched situation.
That's exactly my point, I probably just didn't express it adequately. The NFHS is very specific regarding what can be worn on the head and arms. Basically it has to be soft and non abrasive (and of a certain color, and logo less, ....). Which is why I have found it so surprising that glasses are not addressed (or maybe they were addressed at one time and it wasn't considered important).

Glasses contributing to an injury to the player wearing them, or to an opponent, or causing a hazardous situation is no more "far - fetched" than a barrette slicing through a hand, and I would dare to say that the glasses are probably more dangerous.

I just find it odd that NFHS is so anal about some things but doesn't seem to have considered other items which pose greater danger.
Reply With Quote