Rules Interpretation Meeting--Bicep Bands

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Sneakers are illegal now, too?!?!?!

I apreciate the humor. Wish I knew how to use smilies.

when I said not on list equal illegal I was being sarcastic. In the past NF has made interpretaions and their rationale was that the item in question was not part of the approved list of legal apparrel ar actions allowable.

Yet in the casebook 3.5 Sistuation A ruling they state: "It will be noted that the listing of equipment which is always illegal is not inclusive." That means there are more illegal items than on the list.

They try to have it both ways (Allowed because not specifically prohibited vs prohibited because not specifially allowed). Which one to apply to a specific item is totally to their person whims.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Because it makes it more black and white for me...less gray. I don't have to worry about what a bicep band is. If anything is worn above the elbow, I tell the kid to move it down below the elbow or don't play. Makes my job much easier.

The ironic thing is I can have a cast from my shoulder down to top of my elbow and cover it with pading and be legal yet a 2" wide cloth non abrasive band worn above my elbow to prevent sweat from getting in the elbow crease which bothers my shot is illegal. If fact it is of such a major concern that it is a point of emphasis.

Its black and white but as for logic: go figure.

[Smitty]

I'm pretty sure it's not about function or safety - it's about the uniformity, if you will, of the uniform. They appear to not want any individual player to dress in a certain way that is showy or "bigger than the game". I would argue that the vast majority of kids who wear sweatbands on their upper arm do so as a fashion statement, not as a functional piece of equipment.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Why are you asking me? I am just passing along the literature that backs up the ruling we were given a month ago. I have no idea why this is even an issue in the first place. I wish the NF never made these things an issue at all. But they did and this was the ruling (why I have no idea either) was made. I am passing along the information because it is possible that other places may have a similar ruling.

Peace

Of course my comments were rhetorical and not specifically aimed at you to answer. Only to show the folly of an innapropriate and unnecessary rule.

Ditto on the fact that I wish the NF never made an issue of it. Neither players, coaches, or officials have made an issue of it in the past so I can only conclude it is only an issue because of a personal whim by someone on the rules committee or our esteemed Secretary-Editor. Who knows...maybe it became a rule because UnderArmor (they seem to be the only manufacturer making bicps bands so popular in football) refused to pay NF some sort of "sponser fee" so NF wouldn't make a rule to prohibit them.


PS. If all the states got together and decide to ignore the fashion police then maybe we can get it reversed.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I'm pretty sure it's not about function or safety - it's about the uniformity, if you will, of the uniform. They appear to not want any individual player to dress in a certain way that is showy or "bigger than the game". I would argue that the vast majority of kids who wear sweatbands on their upper arm do so as a fashion statement, not as a functional piece of equipment.

Given that statement the baggy shorts popularized by the Fab 5 at Michigan should have been declared illegal. Most teams who adopted that style (fashion) if that is the word you prefer did so out of how it looked, not functionality. Why not illegal? Because it met the 3 criteria a referee must use to determine legal/ilegal equipment. This is NF criteria, not mine.

1. Nothing in their nature was inherantly dangerous
2. Not unnatural or designed to create an advantage.
3. Appropriate to basketball and not confusing.

Which of those 3 causes a sweatband on the upper arm to be deemed illegal?

[Smitty]

I can't answer that question, and I'm not trying to defend the rule about the sweatbands, either. I was merely trying to explain why I thought the rule was put in place. I honestly don't get the analogy you're trying to make. I would equate the issue more to the rule about shorts being pulled up around the waist and not allowing players to have their shorts down around the middle of their a$$. But the baggy shorts - I don't get what you're trying to say there.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I can't answer that question, and I'm not trying to defend the rule about the sweatbands, either. I was merely trying to explain why I thought the rule was put in place. I honestly don't get the analogy you're trying to make. I would equate the issue more to the rule about shorts being pulled up around the waist and not allowing players to have their shorts down around the middle of their a$$. But the baggy shorts - I don't get what you're trying to say there.

for some reason the NF rules committee is confusing "required uniforms" with Legal/illegal equipment or apparel.

Required uniform is shirt, pants, and shoes (BTW: latter two are only mentioned in passing but never defined as the shirt is.)

Equipment/apparel is anything else. The ref is sole judge of legality but NF does provide some guidelines.

The issue with sweatbands has to do with the rules committee being concerned these items were being worn as part of the UNIFORM. If they are worn below the elbow they are just legal apparel BUT heaven forbid I wear the sweatband above my elbow to prevent sweat from accumlating in the crease of elbow because it affects my shot because the NF has said it is illegal because the trend was affecting team uniformity.

Every player on the team can wear the same color wristband on the wrist and no one complains.

Every team member wears the same color sweatband just above the elbow and all of a suddenly it is a threat to team uniformity and just used to draw attention to themselves.

The team members are dressed alike in every way wearing apparel that in reality meets the NF 3 pronged test for legality but only becomes illegal because of location. Absolutely ludicrous.

BTW: I can wear one blue sock and one white sock. i can wear a sock on my left foot and none on my right foot. I can wear one striped sock and one plaid sock. I can wear one sock up over the calf and let the other sock dangle around my ankles.

What? No outrage over this?

[Smitty]

Your arguments are certainly valid. When you look at it like that it really does seem absurd. I sometimes think the people making up these rules are very old and very out of touch with the modern game of basketball. But this is what we signed up to do - uphold these rules that they come up with.

I'm still very happy that I don't have to deal with a gray area of figuring out what a bicep band is, as opposed to a sweatband. We don't allow either above the elbow. Until they change the rule, that's what I'm going to do.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

BTW: I can wear one blue sock and one white sock. i can wear a sock on my left foot and none on my right foot. I can wear one striped sock and one plaid sock. I can wear one sock up over the calf and let the other sock dangle around my ankles.

What? No outrage over this?

The funny thing about this comment is the NF did once try to regulate what kinds of socks players were allowed to wear. They used to say that you could not have more than one manufacture's logo on the socks. So at the time if you wore some Nike socks with a logo on both sides of the socks, the socks had to be taken off or turned inside out (which you could still see the back part of the logo). The NF then got rid of the rule and said in so many words, "Socks are not a part of the uniform that schools supply anymore, so we cannot enforce a rule properly with a piece of equipment that each person purchases on their own." Or something like that was said. Now we have a rule that is based on something that is not normally influenced directly by teams or schools like socks to regulate. I just do not understand why this is a priority but socks are not?

Peace