Tattoos?

[armymanjones]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

He's saying don't worry, and you're calling him up-tight? THis must be some new slang definition of up-tight that i"ve never heard before.

I apologize for the up-tight comment but what I meant was that in absence of rules you may have to make a decision. If someone is wearing a tatoo that I know is offensive ie to race or gender, I would have it covered or the kid would not play. You can look it up and may not find a rule but I would consider it unsportsmanlike.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by armymanjones

... If someone is wearing a tatoo that I know is offensive ie to race or gender, I would have it covered or the kid would not play. You can look it up and may not find a rule but I would consider it unsportsmanlike.

OK Army, this is a lot better. You were not clearly defining a scenario in your previous posts.

In this case I would inform game management about the offensive tattoo. Any actions concerning the tattoo from that point on would up to game management and the coach(es). I still believe we as officials would be powerless to take any further action.

Now in an intra-mural or base team game played on a military installation, that could be a totally different story. There are post/base regulations or command directives that may be violated by the display of the tattoos. But even then, it would be addressed in the by-laws with specific actions to be taken.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by armymanjones

I apologize for the up-tight comment but what I meant was that in absence of rules you may have to make a decision. If someone is wearing a tatoo that I know is offensive ie to race or gender, I would have it covered or the kid would not play. You can look it up and may not find a rule but I would consider it unsportsmanlike.

I can see this opening a big ol' bag o' something that I don't want opened when I'm working. I see what you're saying, AMJ, but "offensive" is still a hugely subjective word. The first thing that popped into my head was an 18-year-old senior with a Confederate flag tatoo on the upper arm. Whadya do there?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

I can see this opening a big ol' bag o' something that I don't want opened when I'm working. I see what you're saying, AMJ, but "offensive" is still a hugely subjective word. The first thing that popped into my head was an 18-year-old senior with a Confederate flag tatoo on the upper arm. Whadya do there?

I worked at a school that part of their logo was a confederate flag and I did not do a thing about it. This was the school's logo and the HS name was Southern HS. Now all these rules were in place then and now and I do not know of anyone that did not allow the team to play or show their logo at games. The town the school was in also had "sun down laws" in place and was not the friendliest place to work on the surface for someone like myself. But the administration asked me to officiate there and I never had any problems with anyone while working games at this school. Am I offended by the Confederate flag|? Of course I am offended. I knew how to pick my battles and did not have a lot of options at the time to work. Now I am sure some people would say "they cannot have that flag up." But what were you going to do about it? Were you going to fight a battle that you had no right to uphold? Would you not allow the team to play on the road or in a tournament?

Peace

[deecee]

you shlould have them cover all their logos with tape...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by deecee

you shlould have them cover all their logos with tape...

Then that means any conference representation in any gym should be covered. That means that the pads used under the basket and up against the wall needed to be covered. Now this is before you get to a single jersey. Oh, I am almost forgotten, you have to use tape on every shirt a parent and students might wear because they will also have a depiction of this flag. Or are we not to allow any student or parent from that school watch because they might have such a logo?

Peace

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Then that means any conference representation in any gym should be covered. That means that the pads used under the basket and up against the wall needed to be covered. Now this is before you get to a single jersey. Oh, I am almost forgotten, you have to use tape on every shirt a parent and students might wear because they will also have a depiction of this flag. Or are we not to allow any student or parent from that school watch because they might have such a logo?

Peace

Seconded! Until they can be re-educated to see why said logo/flag is inappropriate, and that said logo/flag only belongs in museums and school books.

Rant off.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But what were you going to do about it? Were you going to fight a battle that you had no right to uphold? Would you not allow the team to play on the road or in a tournament?

Peace

*Off-topic Alert!*

Kind of like the NCAA banning schools with Indian mascots from hosting tournament games? Kind of like sending the Illinois women's soccer team down to Florida State for their NCAA tournament game, instead of Illinois hosting Florida State?

(Ok, back to your regularly-scheduled thread.)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

*Off-topic Alert!*

Kind of like the NCAA banning schools with Indian mascots from hosting tournament games? Kind of like sending the Illinois women's soccer team down to Florida State for their NCAA tournament game, instead of Illinois hosting Florida State?

(Ok, back to your regularly-scheduled thread.)

Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make, but the NCAA did this not individual officials. For the record the NCAA allowed FSU to use their mascot and logos because the Seminole Tribe in Florida signed off on the use of those images. Also the Seminole Tribe was largely involved in the usage of these images and customs. Illinois just made up some Native American image and created some dance that had no religious or cultural significance. Actually the Illini represents no tribe or any organization in any way. Also this has been a hot button issue throughout the State of Illinois for years with the fact this is also a State funded uniform.

Now if the IHSA decided to get rid of a school if there are not changes with mascot or logo that is a different story. And this was done with Pekin and their offensive mascot name several years ago.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Not sure exactly what point you are trying to make,

Actually, the point I was trying to make was pointing out the difficulty of trying to determine what is offensive, and what isn't. In this instance, the NCAA made the blanket policy that all Indian mascots are considered offensive and racist. Since they cannot (supposedly) dictate to member schools what mascot they use, the NCAA determined they can dictate what schools host post-season tournament games, based on those mascots. This is obviously a money issue, as the NCAA is hoping to influence the schools by depriving them of the revenue from those post-season games. In the case of Florida State, the reason the Seminole Tribe signed off on the use of the mascot is because the university donates a large amount of money to the tribe.

You're not exactly correct about the U of I's symbol; it is based upon the Illinwek tribe, which was largely based in Illinois, but is a currently extinct tribe.

So, there just seems to be a bit of hypocrasy in the NCAA's position. It is very obvious it is a money issue, not a moral one. If Indian mascots are offensive, then they all are, not just the ones who didn't contribute large amounts of money to the (apparently non-offended) tribe. In the case of the U of I, since there are no current tribe members available to contribute towards, that symbol must be offensive. But who's offended? Certainly not any of the specific tribal members. It was just extremely ironic that the situation played out where the U of I, home of the (offensive?) Chief Illiniwek, was not allowed to host that game, and had to travel to Florida State, home of the (non-offensive?) Seminoles?

So, who gets to make the decision as to what is offensive and what isn't? You and I might have differing opinions, so if we're working a game together with a player that has a Confederate flag tatoo, it might be offesive to you but mean absolutely nothing to me. Should we arm-wrestle to see if you get to tell the player it should be covered, or I get to tell him to play on? Rock, paper, scissors, perhaps?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

It is very obvious it is a money issue, not a moral one.

I don't follow.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

You're not exactly correct about the U of I's symbol; it is based upon the Illinwek tribe, which was largely based in Illinois, but is a currently extinct tribe.

Well that may or may not be true based on who you talk about. I am just repeating what has been said by many representatives in the Native American community. That is a debate we can have, but I do not claim to be the most knowledgable about the entire debate. But I have lived in this state pretty much all my life and I do remember many battles over this mascot and many other issues involving Native Americans and it has always been said that the Chief Illinwek does not belong to a bonefided tribe. We will just have to disagree on this one.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, there just seems to be a bit of hypocrasy in the NCAA's position. It is very obvious it is a money issue, not a moral one. If Indian mascots are offensive, then they all are, not just the ones who didn't contribute large amounts of money to the (apparently non-offended) tribe. In the case of the U of I, since there are no current tribe members available to contribute towards, that symbol must be offensive. But who's offended? Certainly not any of the specific tribal members. It was just extremely ironic that the situation played out where the U of I, home of the (offensive?) Chief Illiniwek, was not allowed to host that game, and had to travel to Florida State, home of the (non-offensive?) Seminoles?

I will put it this way. When people who look nothing like the depictions of the mascot have a problem with the depiction then that is a completely different issue than a bunch of people that are not depicted telling everyone how non-offensive something is. There are not a lot of Native Americans that go to that school or that attend games.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, who gets to make the decision as to what is offensive and what isn't? You and I might have differing opinions, so if we're working a game together with a player that has a Confederate flag tatoo, it might be offesive to you but mean absolutely nothing to me. Should we arm-wrestle to see if you get to tell the player it should be covered, or I get to tell him to play on? Rock, paper, scissors, perhaps?

Remember I did not say I would not allow a kid to play. I might draw a conclusion about that kid and his behavior, but he/he would still play in my game. Remember the Pekin nickname was not offensive to a lot of people and they had to change it in the end.

Peace

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I worked at a school that part of their logo was a confederate flag and I did not do a thing about it. This was the school's logo and the HS name was Southern HS. Now all these rules were in place then and now and I do not know of anyone that did not allow the team to play or show their logo at games. The town the school was in also had "sun down laws" in place and was not the friendliest place to work on the surface for someone like myself. But the administration asked me to officiate there and I never had any problems with anyone while working games at this school. Am I offended by the Confederate flag|? Of course I am offended. I knew how to pick my battles and did not have a lot of options at the time to work. Now I am sure some people would say "they cannot have that flag up." But what were you going to do about it? Were you going to fight a battle that you had no right to uphold? Would you not allow the team to play on the road or in a tournament?

Peace

You're illustrating my point, JRut, about the offensiveness of something being subjective, as well as picking one's battles without official directives. (AMJ said "offensive, i.e. to race...") Same page.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by armymanjones

I apologize for the up-tight comment but what I meant was that in absence of rules you may have to make a decision. If someone is wearing a tatoo that I know is offensive ie to race or gender, I would have it covered or the kid would not play. You can look it up and may not find a rule but I would consider it unsportsmanlike.

In our association, we are told that we can make this decision when we feel that the tattoo is offensive, so we do have a basis in "higher authority", and don't need to fall back on "common sense (since)".

[Texas Aggie]

I'm probably the last person that should chime in here because I think that getting tattoos, other than smoking, is the single stupidest thing a human can do. Thus, if someone has a tattoo that is clearly vulgar, I want it to be shown. I want the individual and the school he represents to put the tattoo on display.

The way you can use 2-3 is if it is a safety issue. Let's say some choir boy came in the gym with a nice little white prison gang tat in a game in an urban area. I'd tell him and the coach that he's not going on the floor without covering that up since we aren't going to have a riot in my game.