Rule 3-7 Safety

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Theres more danger to the player if someone grabs her from behind. Especially during an end of game foul session when being horse collared is much more likely.

We do not penalize that in football if a player is tackled by their hair. It is fair game. Not the exact same issue in basketball as you do not tackle each other, but if someone is at threat of that, then they should wear their hair what it does not make that possible. But I am certianly not telling any player to cut their hair or they cannot play with a certain hairstyle.

Funny we only worry about this with certain people and not others.

Peace

[SNIPERBBB]

I was always curious why football guys do this but most of them tend to be defensive players so they generally aren't going to be tackled from behind.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But I am certainly not telling any player to cut their hair or they cannot play with a certain hairstyle. Funny we only worry about this with certain people and not others.

If you're referring to hair styles worn by different racial or ethnic groups, I agree that officials, rules makers, schools, teachers, employers, etc., all need to broaden their horizons.

Times change. Styles change. Adjust.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But I am certianly not telling any player to cut their hair or they cannot play with a certain hairstyle.

The rule does exist for a reason. But, it isn't for styles like those mentioned above. I see it as addressing spiked hair that could be a danger to other player's eyes. If the spikes are formed by a compound that makes them rigid, it should probably be considered dangerous.

[SNIPERBBB]

Nice picture switch Bill

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The rule does exist for a reason. But, it isn't for styles like those mentioned above. I see it as addressing spiked hair that could be a danger to other player's eyes. If the spikes are formed by a compound that makes them rigid, it should probably be considered dangerous.

Then equally address the hairstyles. Do not pick and choose which ones work. And I have never seen the hairstyle you mentioned in a basketball setting, but I see a lot of long hair on players and we say nothing. Again, then girls and boys should never have long hair, after all, that is dangerous right?

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then equally address the hairstyles. Do not pick and choose which ones work. And I have never seen the hairstyle you mentioned in a basketball setting, but I see a lot of long hair on players and we say nothing. Again, then girls and boys should never have long hair, after all, that is dangerous right?

Peace

You are missing the "point". It isn't about length. It isn't about specific styles in general. It is about something that is an obvious safety issue. You don't see the above style because it is rare to start with but it would be unsafe to the other participants. That is why the rule exist. People that write the rules have enough world experience to know that such styles do exist and want to allow officials the tools the deal with them if they appear on the court.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You are missing the "point". It isn't about length. It isn't about specific styles in general. It is about something that is an obvious safety issue. You don't see the above style because it is rare to start with but it would be unsafe to the other participants. That is why the rule exists. People that write the rules have enough world experience to know that such styles do exist and want to allow officials the tools the deal with them if they appear on the court.

And you are missing my point. It is about style because people are making it about only certain people and not others. I never said a thing about the length of the hair alone. Just funny how people find one style an issue and never even raise the issue of someone they are accepting of. Not everyone's hair is the same texture either. So this is very subjective and often seen by certain people as a problem where others like myself would not find a problem. Also, people that write the rules never have been specific about this, and unless I am missing something we have individuals making these decisions. And sorry I do not trust the NF rules writers about understanding culture and having world experience any more than I would trust those that say they have an issue with a hairstyle, because it comes with inherent bias and often lack of understanding. The same reason that schools set rules for what is a natural hairstyle and not allowing kids or students to reflect on their culture. I typically do not see a lot of diversity in those that write the rules of sports either. And diversity is not always the color of your skin or even gender. It is what you understand or where you are from as much as anything.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not trust the NF rules writers about understanding culture and having world experience any more than I would trust those that say they have an issue with a hairstyle, because it comes with inherent bias and often lack of understanding ... I typically do not see a lot of diversity in those that write the rules of sports either. And diversity is not always the color of your skin or even gender. It is what you understand or where you are from as much as anything.

At least the NFHS recognizes some differences in cultures:

3-5-4-B: For religious reasons – In the event there is documented evidence provided to the state association that a participant may not expose his/her uncovered head, the state association may approve a covering or wrap which is not abrasive, hard or dangerous to any other player and which is attached in such a way it is highly unlikely it will come off during play.

3-5-7: Jewelry is prohibited. Religious and medical-alert medals are not considered jewelry. A religious medal must be taped and worn under the uniform. A medical-alert medal must be taped and may be visible.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

At least the NFHS recognizes some differences in cultures:

3-5-4-B: For religious reasons – In the event there is documented evidence provided to the state association that a participant may not expose his/her uncovered head, the state association may approve a covering or wrap which is not abrasive, hard or dangerous to any other player and which is attached in such a way it is highly unlikely it will come off during play.

3-5-7: Jewelry is prohibited. Religious and medical-alert medals are not considered jewelry. A religious medal must be taped and worn under the uniform. A medical-alert medal must be taped and may be visible.

If I recall, the religious issue came up after there were people trying to prevent players from wearing certain items that did not fit previous wording in the rules. Like the usage of female players covering their legs and arms because of their Faith that technically might have violated rules for undershirts not fitting a certain color or wearing. I know this happened in Illinois where a player was not allowed to play and then the state had to step in and say we are not disallowing this Muslim player to participate because she did not have the right color undershirt. I believe the rules were later changed to reflect the current language soon after. And the NF gave very specific examples to illustrate their position. My point is there might need to be a position on what is considered acceptable or explore what might cause an issue? It concerns me that we are picking and choosing what is safe because we have people that do not understand things from people they do not know about.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... this is very subjective and often seen by certain people as a problem where others like myself would not find a problem. Also, people that write the rules never have been specific about this, and unless I am missing something we have individuals making these decisions ...

Agree the rule lacks specificity.

3-7: The referee must not permit any team member to participate if in his/her judgment any item constitutes a safety concern, such as, but not limited to, a player’s fingernails or hairstyle.

There's not a single reference to hair length/style safety in the casebook or in the annual interpretations.

Maybe the NFHS figures that it can't adjudicate every single possible safety issue, so it leaves this subjective decision up to the referee (not even the umpire).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And you are missing my point. It is about style because people are making it about only certain people and not others. I never said a thing about the length of the hair alone. Just funny how people find one style an issue and never even raise the issue of someone they are accepting of. Not everyone's hair is the same texture either. So this is very subjective and often seen by certain people as a problem where others like myself would not find a problem. Also, people that write the rules never have been specific about this, and unless I am missing something we have individuals making these decisions. And sorry I do not trust the NF rules writers about understanding culture and having world experience any more than I would trust those that say they have an issue with a hairstyle, because it comes with inherent bias and often lack of understanding. The same reason that schools set rules for what is a natural hairstyle and not allowing kids or students to reflect on their culture. I typically do not see a lot of diversity in those that write the rules of sports either. And diversity is not always the color of your skin or even gender. It is what you understand or where you are from as much as anything.

Peace

This isn't about a culture or diversity, it is simply question about a potential safety issue. If something is safe or unsafe, it doesn't matter who it is. The question and answer would be the same if the person were of some other demographic. No need to try to make it something it isn't.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This isn't about a culture of diversity, it is simply question about a potential safety issue. If something is safe or unsafe, it doesn't matter who it is. The question and answer would be the same if the person were of some other demographic. No need to try to make it something it isn't.

It actually is. You can say it is not, but it is. When you pick and choose what is allowed and who is allowed to do things. You clearly do not know how institutional discrimination works. IT works because you have people that do not care or understand differences and then use policies that could discriminate or make policy that says one thing cannot be done while ignoring another situation that might be similar. Now I am not saying that the NF committee is responsible for this specifically, but again we have a debate over one hairstyle and not the other in the very same picture and why is that? Who is making those decisions on what is safe? Is there a specific example given by those in power of the rulebook to state what should be done either way? You said the life experience of these individuals, but I am sure you do not know all the life experiences of every person on the Committee (one is from my state BTW).

Remember, an official got in a little bit of trouble in another sport interpreting a rule on hair and was widely debunked by his state organization and the public for that action. If the NF does not want to have confusion, they can put out stuff saying exactly what they mean. But I also put more responsibility on states because they have to deal with the fall out more than the NF. Kind of why you do not see rules on religious expression in certain places rules adhered to the same way the rules state.

Peace

[johnnyg08]

I agree. I think this has run its course.