Socks?

[refnrev]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Very, very good idea to get him down a different path.

_________________________

Who would even think to worry about the color of bra straps?? It would not even cross my mind!

As for socks, if you really want to look ignorant make the team change into matching socks. I actually worked with a guy who was the R in a three man crew do that one night. Probably the best call he made all night, too. Guess how much fun that game was????

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by refnrev

_________________________

Who would even think to worry about the color of bra straps?? It would not even cross my mind!

As for socks, if you really want to look ignorant make the team change into matching socks. I actually worked with a guy who was the R in a three man crew do that one night. Probably the best call he made all night, too. Guess how much fun that game was????

Really? I'd like to know what rule he thought applied to require this...

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by tjones1

really? I'd like to know what rule he thought applied to require this...

2-3?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by sihoops2

As other guys have said you don't go check but if teams come out with 2 boys wearing a white undershirt and 4 wearing green and another 1 wearing black then it's pretty easy to tell. Don't look for it but if its obivious take care of it is how I look at it.

Shirts are different, they're specifically addressed. The rules say nothing about "undergarments," though. That's BITS' point.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

2-3?

Maybe, but it could lead to 15-20 if he's not careful.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

2-3?

Ummmm, well... yeah, ok.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The rules say nothing about "undergarments," though.

They don't? Are you missing some pages in your rulebook?

NFHS 3-5-5: Undershirts shall be similar in color to the torso of the jersey and shall be hemmed and not have frayed or ragged edges. If the undershirt has sleeves, they shall be the same length.

NFHS 3-5-6: Undergarment or tights shall not extend below the pants/skirt. EXCEPTION: Compression shorts may be worn if the length is above the knee and they are of a single color similar to the predominant color of the pants/skirt.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

really? I'd like to know what rule he thought applied to require this...

3-5-1 ?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

3-5-1 ?

The referee shall not permit any team member to wear equipment or apparel which, in his/her judgment, is dangerous or confusing to other players or is not appropriate.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The referee shall not permit any team member to wear equipment or apparel which, in his/her judgment, is dangerous or confusing to other players or is not appropriate.

This certainly doesn't apply.

This doesn't either because if they are continously looking/watching their opponents socks then they have bigger problems.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

This doesn't either because if they are continously looking/watching their opponents socks then they have bigger problems.

But a case can be made for it.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

But a case can be made for it.

True, but after the case was made there is a very, very good chance I would reply: "Ok, let's play basketball."

[Oz Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Now I'm neither american, nor a lawyer, but how does this fit in with the First Amendment rights to free speech? Not trying to stir anything up, just genuinely curious

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Oz Referee

Now I'm neither american, nor a lawyer, but how does this fit in with the First Amendment rights to free speech? Not trying to stir anything up, just genuinely curious

Obscenity is not protected, for one.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of venue nor medium. IOW, I can't force the NY Times to print my opinions. Nor can I force a billboard owner to accept my advertisements.

Freedom of speech is further limited in academic venues; students are not permitted to incite violence, hatred, or even disruption.

In non-scholastic basketball, first amendment rights are irrelevant as the government is no involved in any way shape or form.

In scholastic ball, with state funded schools, one could possibly make the argument that telling students what they can't wear on their uniforms (or socks) is government censorship. However, obscenity is not protected in a scholastic format (or any other format, broadcast radio, for example.)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Oz Referee

Now I'm neither American, nor a lawyer, but how does this fit in with the First Amendment rights to free speech?

What is "obscene" under U.S. law has plagued our courts for the last fifty years. Many people don't realize that in American society, which trumpets free speech, that there are many restrictions on speech, including restrictions on adult or sexual images and words, or "obscene" materials. Other forms of unprotected or regulated speech include: speech which creates a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action; speech which contains narrowly predefined "fighting words"; written or spoken untruths (libel, slander, fraud) which may be punished by civil suit; speech which is false or deceptive advertising; speech which threatens others; and speech with restrictions justified because the government can demonstrate a "narrowly tailored" "compelling interest". "Obscene" speech is "unprotected" speech as ruled by the Supreme Court. "Unprotected speech," means speech that does not enjoy First Amendment protection and may even be criminal to express. In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced, but I know it when I see it"

I read in the today's newspaper that the Australian government is trying to encourage it's citizens to decrease their alcohol consumption, especially binge drinking. How's that going? We tried that from 1920 to 1933. Didn't work.