Wow, the assigner won't pay you if the players play with illegal adornments, but he doesn't want the home team wearing white? :confused:

Am I the only that questions the consistency of that logic? :eek:

I've found that most of the coaches at lower levels - when I approach them about and undershirt that has to come off because it's the wrong color are pretty understanding. If they look at me funny - I just tell them that it is a rule and while it's not my favorite rule I still have to enforce it. They usually just nod and take care of it.

Now - when you tell them that the headbands, wristbands etc have to be the same color - they will argue and complain a great deal. But the worst has been the narrow sweatbands the kids like to wear just above the elbow. Had a game last week where we told player to remove them or place them below the elbow. Kid did it. A few seconds later, after FT I saw them up again - his team with ball. TWEET and off he goes. Coach asks what the problem is and I told him player couldn't play dressed as he was. Coach errupts! TWEET and down he goes on the bench. He chased us down at halftime demanding to see the rule. I politely told him it was in his rule book and if he wanted to see it he should rip open his envelope and try reading it.

Twice more in the game we did not allow substitues into game because of this. It seemed to me we were the only two guys in the nation that wouldn't allow this. :(

Not the only two...

For OP, I wouldn't have gotten upset with the coach because he gave me an honest answer. Yes, he could make my life easier by properly attiring his team, but if he would rather waste warm-up time having his kids change, that's his business. I would just politely have all of the illegal items removed before the kids take the floor for the warm-up period. That's enough of a punishment right there.

You do know that is incorrect, right? ;)

True...I did have a kid with a blue undershirt on that matched his jersey, but had a Cubs logo on it....aside from the fact that I am a Sox fan and was therefore offended:) , I told him he couldn't have a logo on his undershirt so he would have to remove it...the kid was actually smart and turned it inside out, which looks a little funny, but worked for me...although I suppose I could have looked back to the whole "items shall be worn as intended by the manufacturer", or however it is worded...anybody else ever see this?

Wow, I really don't think that is right.:(
1. Could the logo be seen with the jersey on?
2. Did the Chicago Cubs manufacture the shirt?

If the answer to either question is no, then I think that you misapplied the rule.

Sorry, yes the logo was on the sleeve..

Ok, so it could be seen, but I still don't believe that it was illegal due to it not being a manufacturer's logo (question #2). The Chicago Cubs are not a t-shirt maker as far as I know.

See my point?

I think that would probably just be plumbing. Manufacturer intended it to be worn with the head through the center hole and the arms through the holes on the side. Inside out, I don't think the manufacturer cares so much ;)

Ha ha well put! My thinking was along the same lines of an unhemmed sleeve, it doesn't look "neat", etc...again, admittedly a silly item to have to deal with, but until they tell me to not worry about the uni's...

I don't read that the same way, I read it as a logo put on the shirt BY the manufacturer not necessarily a logo OF the manufacturer...are you allowing a logo on the sleeve of the school mascot for instince?

This is probably not legal. If you work the game, you get paid. If the assignor doesn't like the job you do, he has every right not to invite you back. Don't put up with that kind of BS intimidation.

Well, let's see what some of the other folks have to say on this, but the text of the rule reads very plainly.

As for your example about the school mascot on the sleeve of the undershirt, yes, I believe that is completely legal. The school didn't make the shirts, Fruit of the Loom, Nike, or Underarmour did.

Please note that the school mascot or logo is legal on the jersey and that jersey and undershirt are both covered by the same rule. So why do you think that the policy is different?

Well I suppose I just took 4.13 to mean that there could be no visible logo on the undershirt....like I said I took "no visible manufacturer's logo" to mean no logo affixed by the manufacturer...I don't think I have ever seen a logo other than one "of" the manufacturer though until this kid...can't think of a reason why the NF would be as strict as they are on other aspects of the uniform, but let you have an undershirt with a logo completely unrelated to anything on it....

Based on their baseball W-L record, maybe they should try that instead. :rolleyes: