Tattoos?
 

I'm at work without my books (I know, shame on me) and the question about players with tattoos has come up. Does anyone have a rules reference to tattoos on players and if they need to be covered?

Thanks!

In Wisconsin we don't have any restrictions on tattoos, our state doesn't want to get into a battle over Free Speech!

I may not be up on this everywhere but I don't believe there is a NFHS rule

I remember watching LaBron James play in HS and he had his all covered.

There are no references at all in the NCAA rulebook.

But Whistle, I am curious though as to how or why this question came up.

Could have been school or team policy. I don't know of any NFHS rule that addresses tattoos.

My partner and I were discussing it last night as he had a player earlier in the year that had a tattoo. He thought he remembered hearing that tattoos must be covered up if they are visible and told a coach that his player had to cover up his skin art. The coach acted like he had been told that before and had forgotten to have his player cover up his tattoo. Lo and behold, we had a girl's game last night and one of the home players had a tribal band around her bicep and it was covered. That was definitely a first for me in a girl's game.

What do they cover it with? Cloth sleeves are illegal, right?

In your case it appears to be a local/State policy. If it is a state policy than something should be posted to your State HS website.

If we enforced that policy here we would have a lot of illegal sweatbands. :cool:

Last night it was a large piece of what looked to be tape. While you could still see the tattoo through the tape, we did give them credit for the effort.

Where do you officiate? I work in Allen Iverson's hometown so you can imagine what I see. We would have a bunch of mummies runnning around the court.

There was a NF rule about 8 years ago that outlawed tattoos that would be considered offensive or profane. Then the next year the rule was repealed. Considering what is offensive is a very slippery slope and is not going to have agreement across the board, I think it is safe to assume why this rule was repealed. Now there are some states and other jurisdictions that have their own rules about tattoos. Lebron James from what I understand had to cover up his tattoos because of the school rules (private school) not based on the state organization. I am sure someone from Ohio might clear that up, but that is what I remember being discussed here.

Peace

in samoan culture body art is is sacred and a right of passage -- so I see many samoan teens with tatoos and its not to be cool -- its because thats their culture.

NFHS Rule 3-5 Art 1 says: "The referee shall not permit any team member to waer equipment or apparel which, in his/her judgement, is dangerous or confusing to other players or is not appropriate"

True...but do you wear a tatoo or do you have a tatoo? :rolleyes:

I have 3 tats, and as a player, our state association made me wear a sleve because i had "Pirate Pride" on my left arm. I'm just saying that there are some rules that may protain to tattoos

A tattoo is not equipment, nor is it apparel. This rule does not apply.

Is a tatoo equipment or apparel which is dangerous or confusing to other players or is not appropriate?

I "have" tatoos, and they are not "worn" - they are "displayed." (And not when officiating.):D

Theoretically here (reaching - reach with me), could a vulgar tattoo not possibly be construed/judged to be an offense punishable by a flagrant technical foul? For instance, one that includes the bad word? (-I've seen one in university intramurals.) - Although, I suppose it would go directly against the previously mentioned repeal of the pertinent NFHS rule.

Not that I'm wanting to do this, just stirring things.:)

Thats the best rule I could find, but who really cares about players wearing tattoos anyways

If a tatoo was vulgar or offensive I would require it to be covered up and would use the rule as being inappropriate

Didn't Lebron play for a catholic school? My guess is it's a school or conference thing.

AMJ -

I think you would have to avoid using the word "offensive," and use only the word "vulgar" if you were to do so in talking with the player/coach, per 4-19-4, as it would directly contradict the NFHS repealed rule JRut mentioned, assuming the word "offensive" was the language used in the rule.

Bingo!

Correct all the way through iirc.

Equipment and apparel are not tattoos. You cannot just put them on or take them off as you wish (at least the permanent kind). If that is the case then hairstyles would be subject to this rule.

Peace

How about NFHS rule 2-3??

I'm thinking about have that tattoo'd to my forehead. :D

You can do whatever you like, but that would make you a plumber in my opinion and there is a reason the NF got rid of this rule and a reason the NCAA has not produced one at all from my recollection. And if you are working with me and that is something you are going to make a big deal with, you will be doing it by yourself.

Peace

Come on JR lighten up. I work within the rules. In absent of a rule you tell me what you would do?

I think you are the person that needs to lighten up. You did not tell a joke and nothing you said was funny. I am telling you that your logic is a stretch. I already know what the NF felt, because they got rid of the rule because it was impossible to enforce without causing a lot of problems. This was a rule that was tried in football and baseball as well and all sports got rid of this rule (I would not be surprised if soccer and volleyball as an example had similar rules). If you did not understand what I would do by previous posts, I would do nothing just like I did when the rule was in place. I am not looking for tattoos and I am not looking to see what is on them. If something is offensive in any way, it better be brought to my attention and even then what is the remedy? You cannot make them take their skin off. I do not have a laser gun in the bag. I am definitely not going to stop a kid from playing. This is an issue for the schools and their parents. Let the school get sued for this, I am staying out of it. And if I worked with a partner like you that wanted this called, you would be the only one going out of their way to enforce it.

Peace

I, and I like to think many, dont go loooking to police any more BS than we have to. I think the whistle and snazzy stripes we wear give some officials a power trip and they think that they can do or say anything on the court. Just officiate the damn game and dont go looking for a reason to throw your weight around when not necessary. Many of the rules if you really break them down you might be able to come up with some really retarded stuff.

in absent of a rule I use something called judgement -- if it makes sense, isnt harmful, doesnt give advantage -- but rulebooks cannot teach you judgement.

I'm not Jeff, and I've never played one on TV, but absent a rule, you leave it alone.

He's already told you.

There's no rule governing tattoos. That means that you've got nothing to enforce. JRut also gave you the reason why.....so officials wouldn't be able to try to impose their own standards.

Iow, don't worry about tats.

You guys are really uptight. I am going to get ready for my games but if you think the only things you have to ever worry about is covered in the rule books you are mistaken.

rite is the right usage here.

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.

LOL!!!!

My point exactly. :rolleyes:

Peace

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.

There's a big difference between being "uptight" and <b>knowing</b> how a situation should be called. If you don't like the answers that you get here, fine. Basically, none of us really gives a damn anyway. But don't try to rationalize away the fact that no one agrees with you by assuming people that you have never known or met are "uptight".

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?;)

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)".

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.

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 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

*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.)

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.

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

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.

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 <b>all</B> 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?

I don't follow.

I think what M&M means is that the NCAA isn't all that interested in the moral issue if it's too hard on their bottom line. See also the University of Minnesota's half-azz stance on the issue (canceling all non-hockey contests against the University of North Dakota) for further evidence of this.
The NCAA is only interested, with this issue anyway, of appeasing a vocal minority of native american descendants.

A good discourse on the topic (including a statement that there actually are descendents of the Illiniwek, and that they do object to the U of I's mascot use): http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ive_americans/

A decent, fairly unbiased article on the topic: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sport...cots_8-25.html

The NCAA's original release:
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p..._comm_rls.html

Incidentally, I still don't understand how the NCAA's position can be characterized as one of money. I haven't read through/into anything in their releases or official policy that leads me to think that.


Edited to include:

I think that if the NCAA were concerned that much about its bottom line and profit margins (especially at its Championships, where it makes much of its money), they would've/could've avoided this issue (as it is an extremely controversial one that would invoke much resistance from its member institutions), and kept it out of the public eye for the most part, and, instead, chose not to put policies into place regarding alcohol at its Championships (see bottom section of the last linked article on the NCAA's website).

I'm not suggesting that the NCAA is perfect, all-knowing, always in the right, not at all concerned with monetary issues, etc., etc.,, but I'm not convinced this one is a financial issue, yet.

Maybe it's better said that money has a way of mitigating the NCAA's moral stance.

If There Was A Rule
 

I'm just curious. If there ever was any NFHS rule pertaining to offensive or vulgar tattoos, as mentioned in this thread, and if such a rule was repealed, can any Forum member look through their old rule books and find the exact citation, wording, etc. and any followup wording when the rule, if it existed, was repealed ? I do vaguely remember such a rule.

I've only been keeping my old rule books for about ten years. I wish that I had kept all twenty-six of them. Thanks.

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. ;)

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.

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

Obviously if there was once a rule, then it obviously would be in a rulebook at one time. The issue is when which I do not exactly remember. It was over 5 years ago and likely about 8 years ago. If you kept all those rulebooks, you could find it.

Peace

Just to answer a few of the points that were brought up - I still believe the basic issue with the NCAA has to do with money. Maybe not directly with the NCAA's bottom line, but it's financial nontheless. You can draw many similarities between the Chief Illiniwek symbol at the U of I, and the Chief Osceola symbol at Florida State. Both are portrayed by members of completely different race. Both do a "routine" not necessarily based on total historical accuracy (although I believe Chief Osceola is based upon an actual person in history). Both are considered offensive by (some? many?) Native Americans. So why is Florida State allowed to keep Chief Osceola, and host post-season NCAA tournament games (and thus the revenues associated with them), while Illinois is not? Because Florida State contributes a large amount to the Seminole Tribe; in return the Tribe agrees to accept the symbol. Money rules. If the NCAA was pure in their intention that they rid their member schools of all possible offensive symbols, then it should be <B>all</B> of them. Not just the ones that haven't bribed (oops, contributed to) the right causes.

HawkeyeCubP - the article you suggested: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...ive_americans/ has a great final paragraph about a survey done by Sports Illustrated in 2002. It shows 81% of Native Americans that responded said they disagreed with the suggestion that schools stop using Native American mascots.

So who is being offended?

Ok, I didn't mean to hijack the topic, but just wanted to point out it's very difficult to define what's offensive. So we, as officials, shouldn't be put in a position to have to rule on such items in a game situation. That should be handled at a school, district, state or federal level.

I agree that tattoos are not prohibited by rule. Hair styles, however, may be prohibited if dangerous, per 3-7.

PMJI...

PBS has never done anything that was unbiased.

The NCAA has hypocrisy as an organizational creed.

As to the NCAA's motives in granting exceptions from this policy not being about money... in whose universe? This was a product of the internal NCAA Executive Committee Subcommittee On Gender And Diversity Issues, which, since it was created HAD to do something to justify its existance.

Once the NCAA bans the little lepraucaun and the nickname "Fighting Irish", then I'll know they are serious about ethnic slurs in college mascots. After all, which is more offensive: a mascot associating an ethnic group with drunken brawls, or a mascot (e.g. "Fighting Sioux") based on an honorable warrior?

Mark,

And that refers more to stuff you put in your hair, not the hair itself. I did not refer to head decorations which seem to be the only thing prohibited under the rules. There is nothing about hair styles that are illegal. At least that is not the case based on your specific reference.

Peace

Rut - I agree that the rule is meant in 99% of cases to apply to hair decorations (actually covered by 3-5-1, 3-5-3 and 3-5-7), rule 3-7 itself does give the referee the ability to prohibit a player from entering the game if that player's hair style is dangerous. While I can't think of a situation where that would be applicable, it is a rule and can be enforced if needed.

The Irish, as an ethnic group, weren't systematically and deceptively annihilated, nor subject to anything close to the type of racism and bigotry native americans have been subjected to in this country since its inception. You cannot adequately compare the two for purposes of deciding what is acceptable in today's culture.

I don't see how this piece could be any more unbiased than it is. It's a discussion involving people's comments from both sides of the debate - and they're not actually debating, but simply laying out their comments for the reader to make of them what he/she wishes. It's a purely informative piece, not a persuasive one.

NFHS Tattoos
 

Here's what I discovered about NFHS rules regarding tattoos:

1996-97 NFHS Basketball Rule Book, page 70, Points of Emphasis: Permanent tattoos pose problems if they are objectionable for one reason or another. School administrators and/or coaches have an obligation to have objectionable markings of a permanent type covered. It is not in the best interest of the game to have officials placed in a position where from game to game they must rule on what is objectionable. Obviously, officials can and will make these decisions when outright vulgarity or obsenity is involved or when such markings violate sportmanship and/or taunting or baiting regulations.

I don't recall if this Point of Emphasis was changed in any way in later Rule Book editions.

Labron attended a Catholic high school, and he was told by school officials that the tattoos had to be covered.

MTD, Sr.