Illegal uniform number

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

Yep, uniforms vs, player equipment.

I also heard a rumor that the "no penalty for player equipment violations" is being looked at and might be changing in the future.

Allowing them to play at the cost of a T (except with jewelry) might actually clean that up.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Adam

Allowing them to play at the cost of a T (except with jewelry) might actually clean that up.

Which equipment violations might they allow at the cost of a T? This is a head scratcher for me...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Which equipment violations might they allow at the cost of a T? This is a head scratcher for me...

I'm thinking undershirts, headbands, wristbands.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

Allowing them to play at the cost of a T (except with jewelry) might actually clean that up.

Originally Posted by Smitty

Which equipment violations might they allow at the cost of a T? This is a head scratcher for me...

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm thinking undershirts, headbands, wristbands.

I was under the impression that the T wouldn't make it legal for them to wear it, just that it would be a T if discovered while playing and they must still remove it to continue. The idea being that the threat of a T (on the head coach) would encourage the coach to make sure it is taken care of so we don't have to.

And it would apply to all uniform/apparel issues that are regulated.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I was under the impression that the T wouldn't make it legal for them to wear it, just that it would be a T if discovered while playing and they must still remove it to continue. The idea being that the threat of a T (on the head coach) would encourage the coach to make sure it is taken care of so we don't have to.

And it would apply to all uniform/apparel issues that are regulated.

I like that better.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I was under the impression that the T wouldn't make it legal for them to wear it, just that it would be a T if discovered while playing and they must still remove it to continue. The idea being that the threat of a T (on the head coach) would encourage the coach to make sure it is taken care of so we don't have to.

And it would apply to all uniform/apparel issues that are regulated.

Originally Posted by Adam

I like that better.

I have to take the other side of the fence and disagree with this. If you have a uniform violation that is discovered while playing, then that means we screwed up somewhere along the way, because they shouldn't be allowed to have played in the 1st place. While I admit I haven't thought a ton about this, If a technical rule was introduced, I think it would need to be either change all uniforms to be legal (one warning) or take a single tech to cover all infractions, similar to the illegal number thing.

It just seems that calling a tech for something we should've caught earlier is going to make things worse for us, not better

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I have to take the other side of the fence and disagree with this. If you have a uniform violation that is discovered while playing, then that means we screwed up somewhere along the way, because they shouldn't be allowed to have played in the 1st place. While I admit I haven't thought a ton about this, If a technical rule was introduced, I think it would need to be either change all uniforms to be legal (one warning) or take a single tech to cover all infractions, similar to the illegal number thing.

It just seems that calling a tech for something we should've caught earlier is going to make things worse for us, not better

The idea is that we'd be removed form checking it all before the game and put the onus on the coach.

As for the illegal uniforms, it already is one T regardless of the number of offenders.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I was under the impression that the T wouldn't make it legal for them to wear it, just that it would be a T if discovered while playing and they must still remove it to continue. The idea being that the threat of a T (on the head coach) would encourage the coach to make sure it is taken care of so we don't have to.

And it would apply to all uniform/apparel issues that are regulated.

This was my understanding as well, but I think the focus is on illegal player equipment (arm/leg sleeves, tights, head/wrist bands, etc.). Up to now the only penalty has been the player can't play with illegal equipment. I think the idea is to send a message that they are serious about enforcing player equipment rules, and as Cam said, putting the responsibility on the HC.

I did a google search and found that the state doing the trial is North Carolina. Interesting power-point -two year experiment. The first year (last year) the penalty was a team technical, this year the penalty is a direct T on the head coach. Mandatory enforcement & reporting requirement for officials as well - if they do not, entire crew can get penalized. Wonder how it is working out?

[jTheUmp]

I'd support either a Team T or a Direct Head Coach T for player equipment violations ONLY if they simplify the player equipment rules enough that they can actually be comprehensible to the layperson/below average official (because, let's be honest, it's really the fact that the below-average officials don't know/don't care/refuse to enforce these rules that we have any problems at all).

I've mentioned it before, but here's what I'd suggest for a player equipment rules:

Anything that isn't jersey, shorts, shoes or socks:
1) must be solid black/white/jersey colored.
2) must be the same for all teammates.

The jewelry rule can remain as-is.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

I'd support either a Team T or a Direct Head Coach T for player equipment violations ONLY if they simplify the player equipment rules enough that they can actually be comprehensible to the layperson/below average official (because, let's be honest, it's really the fact that the below-average officials don't know/don't care/refuse to enforce these rules that we have any problems at all).

They already are pretty simple. It is the gymnastics some people try to go through to get out of enforcing them that makes it complicated.

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

I've mentioned it before, but here's what I'd suggest for a player equipment rules:

Anything that isn't jersey, shorts, shoes or socks:
1) must be solid black/white/jersey colored.
2) must be the same for all teammates.

The jewelry rule can remain as-is.

Except for shoes and socks and beige being a legal color, that is the case now. Good luck getting shoes covered. With the fit of shoes being of the greatest importance, I doubt you'll ever see a color restriction on them. Likewise with medical equipment. If a doctor directs them to wear a brace, I doubt they have the choice of colors.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

This was my understanding as well, but I think the focus is on illegal player equipment (arm/leg sleeves, tights, head/wrist bands, etc.). Up to now the only penalty has been the player can't play with illegal equipment. I think the idea is to send a message that they are serious about enforcing player equipment rules, and as Cam said, putting the responsibility on the HC.

I did a google search and found that the state doing the trial is North Carolina. Interesting power-point -two year experiment. The first year (last year) the penalty was a team technical, this year the penalty is a direct T on the head coach. Mandatory enforcement & reporting requirement for officials as well - if they do not, entire crew can get penalized. Wonder how it is working out?

Care to share the link?

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

Care to share the link?

https://www.nchsaa.org/sites/default...0Point.CD_.ppt

see slides 10 thru 15

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Adam

Allowing them to play at the cost of a T (except with jewelry) might actually clean that up.

I have no clue what form it might take. The rumor I heard is that it is being experimented with in one area this season - if that's true, maybe someone from there can comment.