Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LDUB
They didn't say it that way because it is specificially written in the rules that caps are required but when a helmet is used it replaces the cap as mandatory equipment.
"Caps and shoes are required equipment (no track spikes allowed). When a player is required to wear a head protector, it replaces the cap as mandatory equipment."
|
LDUB,
This is the point I wanted to make. The exception you quoted specifically refers to players and uses the phrase "required to wear". It does not address coaches who choose to wear protective gear. It would have been a simple matter to add a sentence to this paragraph extending the same replacement rights to coaches who choose to wear protective gear. It would have been simple to add an exception to the interpretation, but they did not do so and even quoted the rule they seemingly want us to ignore.
Why can't an organization as large as the NFHS make the necessary changes to the rules to accomplish their goals? And if they issue interpretations, why do they include language that precludes what they want us to do? It is frustrating to be forced to deal with literalist coaches just because a rule or interpretation is poorly written.
These are rhetorical questions. Just venting!