Tights

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

NFHS 3-5-2-d Guards, casts, braces and compression sleeves must meet the following guidelines: d. Must be worn for medical reasons.

I agree that there is no way that tights can be worn for religious reason, as 3.5.6.b clearly, and specifically, points out (Nice citation Nevadaref), however, the case play does not refer to a medical reason, just a religious reason.

Could 3-5-2-d allow tights, or compression sleeves, of any color, and/or, any length, for a documented medical reason? I say no, but I'm playing Devil's advocate here, and my client would like to know if there are further citations beyond 3-5-6 that would specifically not allow tights/compression sleeves, of any length, and/or color, for documented medical reasons?

No. Tights are not compression sleeves.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

No. Tights are not compression sleeves.

My client concurs. Thanks.

[derwil]

State office came back and said the we need to examine the Dr's excuse and deternine if it is medically necessary. If so, he can play. So I guess we all need to go to medical school.

Tonight in the championship game, his equipment manager had too much... ummm..."celebration" from the Alabama/Auburn game and left the excuse back at the school. No excuse/no tights. He ended up with 21 point including the game winning 3 with time running out. Just think about what he'd have done with the tights!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by derwil

State office came back and said the we need to examine the Dr's excuse and deternine if it is medically necessary. If so, he can play. So I guess we all need to go to medical school.

I don't know what state you are in, but the folks in your office don't have a clue about proper rules enforcement.

I do applaud your efforts to do it right.

[Scrapper1]

While I agree that Nevadaref has posted the correct interp and that tights are not allowed for any reason, I think this is a pretty silly rule. As someone else pointed out, legal compression shorts and very tall socks accomplish the exact same thing and are perfectly legal. So what's the big deal about tights? Just say they have to be the same color as the shorts with no logo or adornment. Dumb to outlaw them.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't know what state you are in, but the folks in your office don't have a clue about proper rules enforcement.

I do applaud your efforts to do it right.

I agree with you on the rule, but....

My state is one that frankly doesn't want to get into a pissing match with doctors on medical necessity. We were told just to make sure the note wasn't from his dentist or chiropractor; not to read it and decide if we agree with the doctor's diagnosis and treatment.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

We were told just to make sure the note wasn't from his dentist, or chiropractor.

My son will be getting his PhD in Sociology. I hope that you would accept a note from him, after he graduates. He has put a lot of hard work into this, so you have to accept his note.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

My son will be getting his PhD in Sociology. I hope that you would accept a note from him, after he graduates. He has put a lot of hard work into this, so you have to accept his note.

BrainMac? Nope, sorry. But I'd accept a note from Mac Taylor.

[JRutledge]

If there are religious reasons, I would check with your local authorities on that. There might be a "wavier" for those that have a religious reasoning for such an item. If there is no "wavier, then they are technically illegal. But understand that if someone wants to, they might just sue you over that. I understand the rule, but I am not willing to be sued over something to prevent something from being illegal if the item is not unsafe or if the item is only illegal for esthetics.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If there are religious reasons, I would check with your local authorities on that. There might be a "wavier" for those that have a religious reasoning for such an item.

Wouldn't the governing body that writes the waiver know enough about the rules to simple tell the player to wear pants, that are perfectly legal, instead of tights, that are illegal. I'm not a theologian, nor do I play one on television, but I doubt that there's a religion out there that requires their followers to wear tights. There probably are religions that require their followers to cover their legs in public, which can be accomplished with a pair of pants.

I officiated a girls game involving a local Christan school a few years ago that had players wearing skirts. Odd looking, but legal.

I just realized that there are several straight lines here for Mark Padgett to take advantage of, but I'll leave them in to make my point.

[Adam]

Billy, you're right. However, check with your state governing body. The rule may be the rule, but we answer to our states more than we answer to the NFHS.

Of course, if you're an IAABO state like me (and you), it gets even more complicated.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Of course, if you're an IAABO state like me (and you), it gets even more complicated.

You're telling me. We would have to involve the International Association of Approved Basketball Officials, the National Federation of State High School Associations, and the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference. There are enough letters in these three acronyms to put together a nice, big pot of alphabet soup.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You're telling me. We would have to involve the International Association of Approved Basketball Officials, the National Federation of State High School Associations, and the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference. There are enough letters in these three acronyms to put together a nice, big pot of alphabet soup.

I get a kick out of the fact that while Colorado is an IAABO state, we are not following the IAABO mechanic of having the calling official go opposite on fouls. IAABO is making this switch, NFHS is not; CO is following NFHS.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I get a kick out of the fact that while Colorado is an IAABO state, we are not following the IAABO mechanic of having the calling official go opposite on fouls. IAABO is making this switch, NFHS is not; CO is following NFHS.

It was sad day when IAABO switched from NFHS mechanics to IAABO mechanics. What's next? IAABO rules? At one point, about twenty five years ago, we had gray IAABO jerseys. Everyone always asked, "Why aren't you wearing stripes?".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Wouldn't the governing body that writes the waiver know enough about the rules to simple tell the player to wear pants, that are perfectly legal, instead of tights, that are illegal. I'm not a theologian, nor do I play one on television, but I doubt that there's a religion out there that requires their followers to wear tights. There probably are religions that require their followers to cover their legs in public, which can be accomplished with a pair of pants.

I officiated a girls game involving a local Christan school a few years ago that had players wearing skirts. Odd looking, but legal.

I just realized that there are several straight lines here for Mark Padgett to take advantage of, but I'll leave them in to make my point.

There was a situation where my state gave a waiver for a girl that was Muslim. At the time the rule was a little different and the rule was later changed, but they did not want us making personal decisions on these situations.

The bottom line is you want the kids to play. You do not want to be so technical if you can avoid it. Religion is a touchy subject and I do not want to be the person they come looking for if there is a legitimate religious expression.

Peace