Almost Cut My Hair (Crosby, Stills, Nash And Young, 1970) …

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Of course no one cared because long sleeves, on jerseys and/or on undershirts, have always been legal.

What if the long sleeves do not match the color of the jersey? Still legal by "rule?"

BTW, this happened before they changed the rule basically not caring what someone wears when they are following their religious expression. But at the time this was not addressed. Many people did not want to get involved. My state specifically had to issue a statement that this was not to be penalized. A few years later the NF officially made that their position. Again, no one was trying to die on that hill.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

What if the long sleeves do not match the color of the jersey? Still legal by "rule?"

Exceptions to not allow long sleeves could include color, frayed edges, unequal length, and/or illegal logos.

Bottom line, as long as I've been officiating, long sleeves on high school jerseys and undershirts have been legal (assuming nothing else is illegal).

Originally Posted by JRutledge

A few years later the NF officially made that their position.

JRutledge may be correct. I don't remember it that way, but I've forgotten a lot of things over forty-plus years.

Maybe it (long sleeves) was a case of if it's not illegal, it's legal?

I honestly don't remember the NFHS ever saying anything about long sleeves being illegal.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Exceptions to not allow long sleeves could include color, frayed edges, unequal length, and/or illegal logos.

Bottom line, as long as I've been officiating, long sleeves on high school jerseys and undershirts have been legal (assuming nothing else is illegal).



JRutledge may be correct. I don't remember it that way, but I've forgotten a lot of things over forty-plus years.

Maybe it (long sleeves) was a case of if it's not illegal, it's legal?

I honestly don't remember the NFHS ever saying anything about long sleeves being illegal.

I did not say that long sleeves themselves were illegal, if you read what I was saying you are talking about something that had a religious expression to it. That can apply to long sleeves if the sleeves do not at all match the jersey. In most situations, I have seen where mostly a girls must cover up her arms and does not go find the color of the jersey to match her sleeves. So the jersey is white and the undershirt and long sleeves are black. Does not fit the current rule and even the old rule as it applies to the color requirement. But if you are doing something for religious or values reasoning, then you can wear them without penalty. And maybe some states have different guidelines for what is acceptable, but in my state, before all these matching stuff mattered and even before the definition of a hair-controlling device was clearly stated, we allowed it when someone did something for religious expression. And if you are that confused about what is allowed, talk to your local people about it, we do not need to go through this incessant debate with yourself about what should be allowed by NF rule. States are there for interpretation for a reason.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... religious expression to it ... long sleeves if the sleeves do not at all match the jersey ... girls must cover up her arms and does not go find the color of the jersey to match her sleeves ... jersey is white and the undershirt (with) long sleeves (is) black. Does not fit the ... rule as it applies to the color requirement. But if you are doing something for religious or values reasoning, then you can wear them without penalty.

Now I get it. Thanks for the explanation. Religious expression possibly "trumping" the undershirt color rules.

I had this exact situation several years ago in a girls varsity game. Long sleeved black undershirt, worn for religious reasons, under a white jersey. Early in the season, so I allowed her to play contingent on her getting the correct color undershirt in the near future (kicking the can down the road). To be honest, I'm not sure what I would do if I saw her later in the season with the same illegal undershirt.

Now with a "regular" (not religious reasons) player, I would offer three choices: change the undershirt to the proper color, remove the undershirt, or not play.

But a player wearing such for religious reasons does not have the choice of removing the illegal undershirt.

I don't believe that there are any NFHS color restrictions on religious head coverings, does the also mean that there are no NFHS color restrictions for long sleeved undershirts worn for religious reasons?

I'm not sure that the current NFHS rule is clear on the answer, however, I'm leaning toward no color restrictions on religious head coverings, but color restrictions for long sleeved undershirts worn for religious reasons.

That's why we have state associations. JRutledge's state association was wise to "take the bull by the horns" rather than ignoring the issue and leaving it up to the interpretation of individual officials.

Of course, here in my little corner of Connecticut, we have many varsity officials who completely ignore illegal undershirts, even when there are no religious issues involved.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard, "But the referee we had in our last game didn't say anything about undershirts", then I could finally buy that villa in Tuscany I've been wanting to purchase.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

My state specifically had to issue a statement that this was not to be penalized. A few years later the NF officially made that their position.

You sure (no NFHS color restrictions for illegal color long sleeved undershirts worn for religious reasons)?

NFHS citation please.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You sure (no NFHS color restrictions for illegal color long sleeved undershirts worn for religious reasons)? NFHS citation please.

If you're talking about this (below), the NFHS still requires state association approval (as JRutledge's state association apparently did).

2011-12 Basketball Rules Changes
A new note was added authorizing state associations to grant exceptions to NFHS playing rules for participants with disabilities, special needs, and/or extenuating circumstances.

2013-14 Basketball Rules Changes
3-5-1 Note Each state association may, in keeping with applicable laws, authorize exceptions to NFHS playing rules to provide reasonable accommodations to individual participants with disabilities and/or special needs, as well as those individuals with unique and extenuating circumstances. The accommodations should not fundamentally alter the sport, heighten risk to the athlete/others, or place opponents at a disadvantage.

Last year's rule change removed the state association approval for religious head coverings, but only for religious head coverings, no mention of removing color restrictions on long sleeve undershirts worn for religious reasons, that's still up to each individual state.

Or did JRutledge mean that his state did this (extenuating circumstances) unilaterally before 2011-12, before it was actually allowed to do?

[JRutledge]

My state has long addressed religious expressions and did not give a darn how it was done, but only cared that that was the reasoning. So if the long sleeves were black and the jersey is white or gold, we were not to not allow the player to participate. The NF's position came later.

Not sure why this is difficult. I said clearly what was the situation.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The NF's position came later.

Was the NFHS "position" (citation) specifically in regard to wrong color long sleeves for religious reasons, or was it for general "unique and extenuating circumstances"?

Was the NFHS "position" (citation) for all high school basketball (wrong color long sleeves for religious reasons), or just for states that decide to "grant exceptions"?

Inquiring minds want to know.