Uniform Question

[Mark Padgett]

Under 3.5.1, I guess he could have considered the mismatched socks "confusing to other players". I know it would make me dizzy just looking at them.

As to manufacturers logos, there is a specific reason for not allowing them. I think it has to do with keeping sponsorship payments out of HS sports, or something like that.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

As to manufacturers logos, there is a specific reason for not allowing them. I think it has to do with keeping sponsorship payments out of HS sports, or something like that.

Do restrictions on manufacturing logos apply to socks?

[BLS]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Do restrictions on manufacturing logos apply to socks?

3.6.1 "Shoes and socks are not considered part of the uniform for purposes of visible logo size."

Manufacturing logos restrictions do not apply to socks or shoes.

Hey, it's my first actual contribution to the forum! It's been all questions from me up to this point.

[Stat-Man]

I'm not 100$% sure, but dind't there used to be NFHS rules on socks, but they were eventually repealed?

Either way, socks are not considered part of the uniform in NFHS.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by BLS

3.6.1 "Shoes and socks are not considered part of the uniform for purposes of visible logo size."

Manufacturing logos restrictions do not apply to socks or shoes.

Hey, it's my first actual contribution to the forum! It's been all questions from me up to this point.

And a good one to boot

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BLS

3.6.1 "Shoes and socks are not considered part of the uniform for purposes of visible logo size."

Manufacturing logos restrictions do not apply to socks or shoes.

Hey, it's my first actual contribution to the forum! It's been all questions from me up to this point.

From a little over a week ago: Socks?

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Do restrictions on manufacturing logos apply to socks?

Apparently, they do in the WCC (W) as of two weeks ago. A matter of time for NFHS? Good lord I hope not.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Under 3.5.1, I guess he could have considered the mismatched socks "confusing to other players". I know it would make me dizzy just looking at them.

No more dizzying than vertical black and white stripes....

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by CoachP

No more dizzying than vertical black and white stripes.

We're supposed to stand out so no one thinks we're a teammate, and passes the ball to us by mistake. Also, we all dress the same, as a team.

[refnrev]

Here's the deal. Anyone that's worried about socks is worried TOO much and is "majoring in the minors." There is nothing in the rules on socks and you look like a dufus when you make it an issue. Trust me, I've seen it happen. Forget socks and worry about fouls, travels, charges, and blocks. That's my less than humble opinion on the matter.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by refnrev

Here's the deal. Anyone that's worried about socks is worried TOO much and is "majoring in the minors." There is nothing in the rules on socks and you look like a dufus when you make it an issue.

While I agree with this, I can also see the possibility of a newer official, who knows that uniforms are a constant POE, might not realize that socks aren't part of the uniform. The rules committee has focused so much on fashion issues in the last 5 or 6 years that it's not unreasonable for someone who isn't really sure to think that socks ought to match.

Obviously, the official needs to learn the actual rule, but with all the fashion POEs recently, would it really surprise anybody if this became a rule?

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Obviously, the official needs to learn the actual rule, but with all the fashion POEs recently, would it really surprise anybody if this became a rule?

Not me. In fact, I'll bet it's on this year's NFHS survey.