![]() |
|
|
|||
OK, I have tried twice to get an answer to this. This makes three times and my last. If we are taking this thread to the "bra" stage surely we can take it to the tights stage. Can a player wear tights only (for religous reasons) as the pants to his uniform? They are not worn below the uniform shorts.
3.5.6 sitB I know that Nevada, Bob and BBRef have opinions (all of which I value) on this. Help me out, is it legal? |
|
|||
If it is a hair control device, it is legal. If it is a head decoration, it is illegal. Determine which one it it is and rule accordingly.
|
|
|||
Quote:
And I think Nevada is wrong that tights aren't pants (for purposes of legality in this situation). I have no doubt they qualify - at least until the NFHS gets into the business of defining pants material and fit - as pants for the purposes of this rule. |
|
|||
Tights are always illegal. If players wish to participate without exposing their legs, the rules provide a means: they may wear trousers (provided that the trousers are otherwise legal).
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
mbyron...explain how tights don't meet the definition in the book of 'trousers'.
|
|
|||
They would if 'trousers' were defined in the book. They're one kind. But they're specifically prohibited by 3-5-6. That prohibition does not extend to every kind (the book uses the term 'pants/skirt' not trousers).
__________________
Cheers, mb |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fashion Police | Zoochy | Basketball | 50 | Tue Jan 09, 2007 08:12pm |
Have you had to be the fashion police? | LarryS | Basketball | 32 | Thu Nov 30, 2006 01:22am |
fashion police? | Junker | Basketball | 39 | Tue Nov 07, 2006 12:16pm |
Question for the Fashion Police | emaxos | Softball | 16 | Thu Jul 07, 2005 06:10am |
Socks? We don't need no stinkin socks!!!!!! | sm_bbcoach | Football | 6 | Mon Aug 30, 2004 03:54pm |