Socks?
 

Are socks considered an undergarment and every player has to wear the same color?

No, there is nothing in the rules that involves socks, give it time though!

Oh brother...
 

3-5-6

If they were considered an undergarment, they would be illegal because they extend below the pants/skirt. Therefore, the color wouldn't matter.

It's in the Case Book.

UNIFORMS — LOGO..

3.6.1 SITUATION:

So they can come out with anything they want too written on their socks and no matter what color they are or how stupid they look we can't say anything at all, pitiful! I'm like MOofficial though, just give it time, they will have something about them soon! :)

The NFHS Ruled On Tattoos, Why Not Socks ???
 

Several years ago the NFHS came out with a rulings about "offensive" tattoos. I'm sure that if a team came out with socks with vulgar, or in some other way, offensive (racial, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, etc.), writing on them, that we could find some NFHS rule, or interpretation, to apply and penalize.

That's right, unless as Billy notes the writing is offensive or objectionable.

We have girls in this area who wear the Dr. Seuss socks. :D

Found It, Now Where Are My Keys ???
 

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.

And just how do you determine that every player is wearing the same color undergarments? ;)

BITS, if you don't know by now... :D

I'm not sure. But I was talking with a high school track official last night, and he said that a couple years ago, there was a directive (from the NFHS or the state? I don't know.) that officials were to ensure that ALL undergarments were of a legal color. He said that lasted about an hour into the first meeting. :D

Only in soccer.

At a girls Varsity scrimmage had a partner who tried to go down the path of matching bra straps. He thought that they needed to match the torso ,I very gently steered him away from a bra check.:eek:

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

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.

_________________________

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

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...

2-3?

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

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

:D Ummmm, well... yeah, ok.

"Semper ubi sub ubi."
 

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.

3-5-1 ?

I Will Not Allow Dangerous Underwear In My Game, Period ...
 

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. :D

But a case can be made for it. :eek:

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

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.)

I Live In The "Constitution State" ...
 

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.

A bit off topic, but......
 

Yeah I have always found it amusing at how censored American TV shows are, compared to Australian programs. I have never (that I can recall) seen a mainstream US show that uses the F (or even S) word, or directly mentions things like abortion. While these are much more prevalent in Australian made programs (not suggesting this is better/worse, just different).

Considering that we have no Bill of Rights or constitutional right to the freedom of speech, I find it kind of ironic that it appears that the US mainstream media is more censored than ours.

Yeah, this has been an ongoing issue for a while. In Australia the legal drinking age is 18, which is also the age that most people leave school and get their drivers license.....you can imagine the consequences. Also in the last 3-5 years there has been a dramatic increase in binge drinking by teens, largely blamed on the price and marketing of Ready-To-Drink "alco-pops" (Jim Beam and Coke etc). As a result, the government increased the tax on RTD's by 100% about 6 months ago. This did nothing to help the problem, in fact has just made more young people drink spirits that they mix themeselves.
As well, there is some talk that the Australian government is going to ban ALL advertising of alcohol, including sponsorship of sporting events/teams. Will be interesting to see if that has any impact - it seemed to work when the same ban was put in place for tobacco.
As a high school teacher, I am very interested in seeing what happens with these issues......

Freedom of speech was, essentially, to ensure freedom of political speech. Censoring obscenities does not affect political speech, so many feel it is less of an issue. Others feel that any censorship is bad, as it eventually spreads.

We may have a bit more censorship of the obscenities, but our libel laws are a bit more geared towards the speaker than in other countries.

While the language and nudity are certainly censored by the FCC here, topical restrictions are purely market driven. Stations aren't prohibited from airing the stuff, they just shy away from it because viewers won't want to see it.

Interesting that your government could ban such a thing. Not even possible here due to, well, free speech issues. :)
I'm curious, have smoking rates gone down in your country?

Really? :confused: Do you actually believe that?

When is the last time that you saw an add for cigarettes on TV? How about on a billboard or in the previews at a movie theater? :p

Absolutely! In around 1985 the advertising of tobacco in print, tv and radio was banned. Then circa 1990 tobacco sponsorship in sporting events was banned. Up until then our major football code was sponsored by our most popular tobacco company. This ban created a few issues with international motor sport, but they had an exemption until around 1998 that allowed them to use tobacco logos, but not brand names. Recently, laws have been passed that prohibit smoking from ALL pubs, bars and food outlets (except some designated locations like special rooms in casinos). Smoking is also illegal in a motor veichle if there is a child under the age of 16 in it. There is currently talk of banning smoking in public places, it is already banned on many beaches.
As well, there have been changes to the packaging of tobacco, there are now large, graphic photos on the packs showing the effects of smoking.
These change have had a dramatic impact on the rate of teens smoking. In 1980 about 35% of teens smoked regularly and around 85% had tried tobacco. Today those numbers are around 15% and 45% respectively.

Very much agreed. Sad thought; they may require socks to be a certain color. Just let them play.

-Lucas

The NFHS Doesn't Monitor This Website, Or Does It ???
 

Thirty-five posts on a "Socks" thread? I hope that we're not giving the NFHS any ideas.