Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Your medical opinion is of no relevance. If that is what her doctor told her to wear, she wears it. It may be that the type of support/protection she needed only happened to come in that size...or the medical supply place was out of the shorter one. It's not for us to ask why the medical appliance manufacturer didn't make it smaller or why the clerk didn't order more of the smaller. If a doc says she needs to wear it (and it is no safety hazard) it is a medical device, not part of the uniform....and the uniform rules don't apply to it.

As for why have the ruling....it keeps it from becoming a free-for-all with no reason. If it somehow gets abused and it becomes a problem, worry about it then.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup, interesting. Your state made a ruling that directly contradicts NFHS rules. Casebook play 3.5.6.SitB asks if it's legal for a player because of religious reasons to wear tights under the basketball uniform shorts . The <b>RULING</b> states <i>"NFHS basketball rules do not require that the uniform pants be "shorts". However, undergarments or <b>tights</b> may <b>NOT</b> may not be worn which extend below the pants, therefore wearing tights "below the uniform shorts" would be <b>illegal</b>. The player could wear pants or a skirt as the uniform "bottom" and be in compliance."</i>

It's kinda interesting that a state would issue a ruling that is completely contradictory to a very explicit and definitive FED ruling. My first thought is usually to wonder if whoever issued that state ruling was actually aware of the relevant NFHS ruling. Be that as it may, they still have the right to amend rules, even though they might face FED sanctions for doing so.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Please don't turn this into a HS thread. If you wish to discuss the NFHS rule, please start another thread. I wish this one to remain focused solely on the NCAA rule.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Second of all, if you want that much control, maybe you could propose a rule change to the board allowing all thread starters to be able to moderate their own threads.

Originally Posted by rockyroad

I really don't get all the angst about this long-sleeved shirt - well, at least all the angst from one person. The NCAA is the governing body. They make the rules. It is also within the scope of their power to make exceptions to those rules. That's what they did. So what's the big deal???:confused:

Here's another example...I do not allow my students to wear hats in my classroom. The kids know this and take their hats off when they come in. Last year I had a 13 year old student who had to go through chemo and radiation treatments. She lost her hair. When her mom called and asked me about wearing a hat in class, I immediately said yes. See, it's my rule and I made an exception for that particular case.

So I ask again...what is the big deal?:confused: :confused:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

She must have been a star player.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It the National Championship, on national television, with 3 of the best officials, and with every conference supervisor in attendance.

I doubt Candace Parker snuck on the court and all of a sudden she appears with a long-sleeved white shirt and nobody knew what was going on. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by dblref

The shirt was legal. The rule states that she can't wear a shirt extending below the elbows. She just has really low elbows. See, no problem. :D

Originally Posted by BearBoy

Hey, good interpetation