2023-2024 Rules Changes Announced.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The point is that, in the past, there wasn't even anything to nitpick. There were zero rules on the short colors. One could have worn white shorts and another could have worn black. You could have had the full rainbow of colors and it would have been 100% legal, by rule.

Now, they've added "like-color" as a new restriction. What is a like color? Good question. Black is not like white. Red it not like blue. Green is not like yellow. But red/white Globetrotter stripes and another that is red or mostly red, to me, would be like. But if one player had all all/mostly red with others wearing the Globetrotter stripes, all/mostly white is no longer an option.

I've have seen some minor variation in the shorts being worn, but they're typically the same color scheme...old vs new, etc.. I guess some had issue with that (not me) and they wanted to make sure no one was preventing kids form playing as long as they were at least similar but wanted to established that it wasn't anything-goes.

I did not see it as an issue because we did not ever have to worry about it. Because if the situation took place as I stated, no way I am penalizing a team because they could not fit a kid. Someone will have to admonish me for that. Just like none of us measured a logo. Glad they need to make that clear, but it to me is going to be applied just like it always was and that was my point. Not really something we will see officials going out of their way to prove unless they do not know any better. Because if they wanted to make it like the other rules with the sleeves or the headbands they would have used the same language. Again, a nothing burger for the most part IMO.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not see it as an issue because we did not ever have to worry about it. Because if the situation took place as I stated, no way I am penalizing a team because they could not fit a kid.

No need to worry about it in the past because, for at least the past forty years, there was absolutely no color restriction on shorts. Only those who didn't understand the rule (or lack of a rule, if it's not illegal, it's legal) had "issues". If any state associations, local officials organizations, or individual officials allowed multiple color shorts, it was a redundancy, no exception was necessary for an imaginary rule that didn't exist.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Only once in my career did a kid have a completely different color pant than the jersey that clearly did not go with the school's uniform ... And if that happened, it would be very hard-pressed to penalize this team with anything because that took place.

And in the past, if anyone penalized this player, or this team, they would be 100% wrong by NFHS rule (or lack of a rule, if it's not illegal, it's legal).

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... Because if they wanted to make it like the other rules with the sleeves or the headbands they would have used the same language.

Agree, "like color" is very odd language, not appearing anywhere else in the rulebook, casebook, or annual interpretations, but it has to mean something, something that has to do with colors.

Same? Similar? Something else?

I can foresee some state associations making exceptions to this new rule, especially for subvarsity games. And if they don't, I can see some officials organizations making exceptions to this new rule for the middle schools that they service, as my local board already does regarding some uniform and equipment rules in middle school games, for example, illegal numbers.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

No need to worry about it in the past because, for at least the past forty years, there was absolutely no color restriction on shorts. Only those who didn't understand the rule (or lack of a rule, if it's not illegal, it's legal) had "issues". If any state associations, local officials organizations, or individual officials allowed multiple color shorts, it was a redundancy, no exception was necessary for an imaginary rule that didn't exist.


And in the past, if anyone penalized this player, or this team, they would be 100% wrong by NFHS rule (or lack of a rule, if it's not illegal, it's legal).


Agree, "like color" is very odd language, not appearing anywhere else in the rulebook, casebook, or annual interpretations, but it has to mean something, something that has to do with colors.

Same? Similar? Something else?

I can foresee some state associations making exceptions to this new rule, especially for subvarsity games. And if they don't, I can see some officials organizations making exceptions to this new rule for the middle schools that they service, as my local board already does regarding some uniform and equipment rules in middle school games, for example, illegal numbers.

You can stay up night worrying about this. I will not because it rarely is an issue anyway before this wording and doubt it would be an issue after. That was ultimately my point. There is going to be a real world application to all of this that will trump the strict application that some will try to point out.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... doubt it would be an issue after.

I'm sure that that's true for your two states.

From your posts in this thread it appears that such multicolored shorts just don't occur in your games, and/or your state associations (or officials organizations, or individual officials), in the past, have redundantly allowed you to be tolerant to allow kids to play.

But it's as big country, and the NFHS has a wide umbrella.

If indeed "like color" means the same color, or a similar color, we will have at least three, or four, teams in our local area of about seventy schools that will have a "real" varsity problem with the new rule.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And I bet each state will have its own interpretation anyway.

Agree. Maybe not every state, but many states.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Pretty sure that our CIAC will have to make some exceptions until everybody goes through a new uniform cycle (or maybe beyond).

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I can foresee some state associations making exceptions to this new rule, especially for subvarsity games. And if they don't, I can see some officials organizations making exceptions to this new rule for the middle schools that they service, as my local board already does regarding some uniform and equipment rules in middle school games, for example, illegal numbers.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm sure that that's true for your two states.

From your posts in this thread it appears that such multicolored shorts just don't occur in your games, and/or your state associations (or officials organizations, or individual officials), in the past, have redundantly allowed you to be tolerant to allow kids to play.

You seem to take things so literally here, that it can be unnerving at times. For one never said there were no multi-color pants like one player wearing all-black pants and another player wearing all-white. That is not something I see. If the school colors are green, I might see one kid that has mostly green and white and another player might have mostly white with green trim or highlights on the pants. So the colors are "like" but they are not the same.

Before we would not have batted an eye and in this current rule we would not bat an eye either. Unless they say that mostly white pant has to involve a different style that is mostly white, then we are not doing something different. Or let us say that a visiting team has mostly green as their school color but they have a mostly grey jersey and pants style for that level, and a kid moving up has green and white. I am probably not changing what we are doing. For you, this seems to be a struggle.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

But it's as big country, and the NFHS has a wide umbrella.

Honestly I do not care what they do all over the country. I do not have to answer to states that I never work in or how they interpret the rules.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If indeed "like color" means the same color, or a similar color, we will have at least three, or four, teams in our local area of about seventy schools that will have a "real" varsity problem with the new rule.

It does not say that, so I am not going to start assuming that is what they mean. Again they might clearly state this issue in the PowerPoint and in some case plays to address this change. When they do I will worry about it, but again I feel this is really much to do about nothing.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If the school colors are green, I might see one kid that has mostly green and white and another player might have mostly white with green trim or highlights on the pants. So the colors are "like" but they are not the same.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again they might clearly state this issue in the PowerPoint and in some case plays to address this change. When they do I will worry about it, but again I feel this is really much to do about nothing.

Agree. "Like color" is very odd rule language.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... not appearing anywhere else in the rulebook, casebook, or annual interpretations, but it has to mean something, something that has to do with colors.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. "Like color" is very odd language.

As I said, this is what they were doing already. I said I had only one case in my entire career where a team had a player were black pants when the rest of the team was white. And that player had black shorts with white trim. So was he not using "like colors" as the current situation?

Peace