thread color on an undershirt

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So when you see the UA compression shirts where you clearly have white or even gray stitching (on white or black shirts), you are not allowing a player to wear those in Oregon?

Peace

If it is visible from 20', no. That is no different than a stripe. It isn't a solid color. They make them with same color stitching.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If it is visible from 20', no. That is no different than a stripe. It isn't a solid color. They make them with same color stitching.

We were told here, not to nitpick stitching. So it is allowed as long as the main color of the shirt is the same color. It seems like a regular design. Now not saying these do not have an issue by rule, but I feel some common sense should be used. Now if the rule was the clarify that stitching should not be a different color, I get that. But we know the kids are wearing what is also available. Just like we would not nitpick a black shirt and black undershirt but you might have some different shades of black being worn by different players or better yet when other colors like grey or gold are worn and you almost never find the same shade of undershirt compared to the jersey or teammates.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... some common sense should be used ... we would not nitpick a black shirt and black undershirt but you might have some different shades of black being worn by different players or better yet when other colors like grey or gold are worn and you almost never find the same shade of undershirt compared to the jersey or teammates.

No need to use common sense here. It's already specifically and clearly covered by the rule.

The most nit-picking, overly officious, "rules expert" official, with almost no common sense, can interpret this correctly just based on the literal rule language.

3-5-6: Undershirts must be a single solid color similar to the torso of the jersey ...

"Similar" is not the same as "same".

For example, a yellow undershirt, by rule, is similar enough to a gold jersey to be legal.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No need to use common sense here. It's already specifically and clearly covered by the rule.

The most nit-picking, overly officious, "rules expert" official, with almost no common sense, can interpret this correctly just based on the literal rule language.

3-5-6: Undershirts must be a single solid color similar to the torso of the jersey ...

"Similar" is not the same as "same".

For example, a yellow undershirt, by rule, is similar enough to a gold jersey to be legal.

I am aware of the rule, but there are shirts that are multiple shades of color and do not match each other in any way. I do not consider light blue the same as dark blue, but we do not make issues with those kinds of colors worn. So how technical are we going to be? This is about the stitching, not just the shades which was stated could not be worn according to the state.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... but there are shirts that are multiple shades of color and do not match each other in any way. I do not consider light blue the same as dark blue ...

Agree. For example, lots and lots of shades of blue (UCONN wears American Flag Blue), some would be "similar" and thus legal, others might not be so "similar" and thus illegal.

Some common sense subjectivity would be necessary in situations like this, subjectivity that might vary from one official to the another, hoping that the state or local association would come up with some well publicized guidelines.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is about the stitching ...

One official's "stitching" is another official's "stripes" (they look like stripes to me) and, again, hoping that the state or local association would come up with some well publicized guidelines.

We haven't seen these undershirts in Connecticut yet, but I'm sure that we eventually will.

[JRutledge]

We were instructed to not make a big deal out of the stitching. So we don't make a big deal out of the stitching, at least I don't. I didn't before but some officials did. And it was not usually these examples. Usually, the white shirts and the black shirts and the stitching were obvious when looking far away.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

We were instructed to not make a big deal out of the stitching.

Sounds like a plan.

If only every local and/or state association would be so organized, communicative, and proactive (or reactive).