2019-20 NFHS: Rumors/Desires?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Player989random

... they're gonna do something about the socks.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They did that already and it lasted a year and changed it back.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

They did? That is news to me.

Originally Posted by Player989random

I don't recall any sock rules last year.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It was actually in the 90s when that rule was put into place.

If we're discussing NFHS rules here (and I think we are), I'm 99.5% positive that there have never been any NFHS sock restrictions over the past forty years.

Maybe it was a proposal (possibly logo size) that was not accepted by the NFHS, or maybe it was a state high school guideline, or maybe some are confusing this topic with other rule sets, but it never made its way into the NFHS rulebook.

I wouldn't bet my house on this, but I would bet some pocket cash. Anybody interested in a fun wager? If so, citation please.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If we're discussing NFHS rules here (and I think we are), I'm 99.5% positive that there have never been any NFHS sock restrictions over the past forty years.

Maybe it was a proposal that was not accepted by the NFHS, or maybe it was a state high school guideline, or maybe some are confusing this topic with other rule sets, but it never made its way into the NFHS rulebook.

I wouldn't bet my house on this, but I would bet a fairly large amount of money. Anybody interested in a fun wager? If so, citation please.

I will say it this way. If I recall this was an editorial change made and it was early in my career. I remember this because I lived in a particular place and worked with a partner that enforced this rule on more than one occasion. We all remember things differently for different reasons. I remember because of where I was an when it was enforced. This was like either the 2nd or 3rd year of my career and it was a big enough deal that I thought it was stupid. Then they made the change or even interpretation change (I am not Mark D) but I do remember this and remember the application conversations. It was stupid because I was thinking that no one provides my socks for me and why do we care if they have a logo on it. If you do not remember or maybe it was more of an issue where I lived, but it was in the rules. Again I think it was just an editorial change where they removed socks from the logo restriction. Again most people did not care but it has been proven that uniform stuff is/was an issue for years in my state.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

change where they removed socks from the logo restriction.

JRutledge is 100% correct. It was an actual NFHS rule change, socks were removed from the logo restriction in 2000-01. Socks were listed under logo restrictions for the four previous years, maybe longer since my rulebooks only go back to 1996-97 (I've officiated since 1980).

I'm not going to quibble about this being a sock restriction, or a logo restriction, it's still a nice ancient citation. Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. is still the king of ancient citations, but JRutledge is a formidable challenger.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

JRutledge is 100% correct. It was an actual NFHS rule change, socks were removed from the logo restriction in 2000-01. Socks were listed under logo restrictions for the four previous years, maybe longer since my rulebooks only go back to 1996-97 (I've officiated since 1980).

I'm not going to quibble about this being a sock restriction, or a logo restriction, it's still a nice ancient citation. Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. is still the king of ancient citations, but JRutledge is a formidable challenger.

Do I get a new house now or just cash?

BTW, that was the year I started. IJS.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Do I get a new house now or just cash?

How about door number two?

[Kansas Ref]

Question: How feasible would it be to suggest that the NF mandate that any player who participates while wearing Rx eyeglasses--must also wear a support band that prevents said Rx eyeglasses from falling off during live ball action?

Maybe make such restraining bands a definite part of the "legally equipped to participate" aspect?

I've had 8th grade girls & boys games whose glasses are flopping off when they get slight contact or just due to perspiration. Even had a case where a kid's glasses were stepped on and broken in the paint.
As an official I've come to question the courtesy [if not legitimacy] of halting play to allow them to pickup Rx eyeglasses.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Kansas Ref

Question: How feasible would it be to suggest that the NF mandate that any player who participates while wearing Rx eyeglasses--must also wear a support band that prevents said Rx eyeglasses from falling off during live ball action?

Maybe make such restraining bands a definite part of the "legally equipped to participate" aspect?

I've had 8th grade girls & boys games whose glasses are flopping off when they get slight contact or just due to perspiration. Even had a case where a kid's glasses were stepped on and broken in the paint.
As an official I've come to question the courtesy [if not legitimacy] of halting play to allow them to pickup Rx eyeglasses.

The argument against it is likely safety ("what if someone's hand gets caught in the croakie?").

Also, today is the last day of the Rules Committee meeting.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Do I get a new house now or just cash?

Just be happy with this:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

JRutledge is 100% correct.

It's a rare as a diamond. Cherish it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Just be happy with this:



It's a rare as a diamond. Cherish it.

It is not about being right, it is about what happened. That happened and I remember it because I was an official. Was not trying to debate, you were. I was just stating what I remembered and folks like you always have to challenge what people know or remember to be right.

Now back to my camp games.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Was not trying to debate, you were.

Pretty difficult to debate a fact.

Facts are often binary. It's an apple, not an orange. Five times three equals fifteen, not sixteen.

You remembered correctly and you were right.

I, and at least one other Forum member, remembered incorrectly, and we were wrong.

It was easy to get closure on the sock issue (where there's a will, there's a way), about ten minutes of research through some old rulebooks.

That's the best part about this Forum, if there's a fact (citation, rule, interpretation, etc.) out there, it will eventually see the light of day.

Someone will remember something, the issue will be researched, and the truth will lay bare.

Unfortunately, it's not always that easy.

Sometimes the NFHS complicates the issue by using imprecise, incomplete, contradictory, or untimely language, that's when we have debates, often with no closure.

Then, of course, there are local differences in the way we do things.

Different isn't always better, or worse, sometimes it's just different.