Long-sleeve undershirt #21 Auburn
 

#21 Rasheem Barrett of Auburn is wearing a long-sleeve undershirt in tonight's game versus Alabama.

Auburn is wearing orange jerseys and shorts and the undershirt is also orange. It is the tight-fitting style made by under armour. In fact, I just spotted the under armour logo on it high on the back of the neck.

RULE 3 Players, Substitutes and Player Equipment
Section 5. Uniforms
Art. 11. An undershirt is considered to be part of the game jersey and must be
a color similar to that of the game jersey. In addition, the sleeves and neckline
of undershirts shall be unaltered. (e.g., no cut-off sleeves or cut necklines) Both
sleeves shall be of the same length and not extend beyond the elbows. No logos,
decorations, trim, commemorative patches, lettering or numbering may be used
on an undershirt. An illegal undershirt shall not be worn.


RULE 3 Players, Substitutes and Player Equipment
Section 6. Uniforms—Logos, Labels, Trademarks
Art. 1. A single manufacturer’s or distributor’s normal logo, label or trademark
may be worn on the game pants, and all other items of apparel excluding the
game jersey and undershirt (e.g., warm-ups, socks, headbands, and wristbands).

What the big deal? I've seen a state high school (playoff championship) game where every girl on the team wore the shirt you described. Without corrections

At the moment the legality of a long-sleeve undershirt in NFHS play is unclear.

I spoke to the rep on the rules committee from my state about it last week during our state tournament.

However, there is no such ambiguity at the NCAA level. The rule is very specific.

I know a couple players on Oklahoma wear the same kind of shirt

Does it ever occur to anyone that maybe there are some players that are given a waiver for this kind of shirt? There have been times in the past where certain rules have been used by conferences to allow certain situations to take place. I have no idea, but I remember Candice Parker during the tournament last year wearing the same long sleeve undershirt and this was in the Final Four. Someone likely does not care for this rule or is giving exceptions to the rule.

Peace

Or people are choosing to simply ignore it. :eek:

Didn't Candace Parker worn the Long Sleeve shirt and she had something wrong with her shoulder or something

Yes she did. And I am wondering if that is the reason or similar reason why this player or players are wearing long sleeves. After all, conferences control a lot of regulations as to how things are done in their games. Wearing an undershirt is not a pressing game issue and does not affect the outcome of any game. Personally I do not get upset about these kinds of things. There is always more to a story than what some want to think there is.

Peace

I believe as long as the sleeves are the same length in NFHS, you can wear long sleeved undershirts and as long as they meet the other guidelines.

I disagree that it's unclear. The way I read it, it's clearly legal in NFHS. The rule only stipulates the sleeves be the same length.

Yep. I actually looked this up during warm-ups at a game this season.

Or people sitting on their butts watching the game on TV have no clue whether an exception was granted for medical, religious, or other reasons. Said people simply want to jump to the conclusion that the officials are somehow messing up and lack some kind of character trait that said people seem to think they have an abundance of.

Go figure.:cool:

I thought the high school rule was crystal clear.

Peace

Did they miss any plays?

That's not important. These rampant sleeves need to be dealt with.

Even if the officials did ignore the rule, who cares? If I recall it did not change the outcome or give a team a decided advantage. The only one that should care is the people that hired these officials or the NCAA Coordinator. And we have no idea if they care.

Peace

We each have our shortcomings. :p

Saw long sleeves again tonight in the MU/OU game. What's up with that?

What did the refs say? :cool:

Nevada, I disagree with your reasoning. There are only three times I can justify disallowing something that is not specifically forbidden by the rules:

1. Safety is an issue.
2. An advantage is gained that is not intended by the rules.
3. It is unsporting.

None of these apply to long sleeves.

So without casebook play 3.5.6 Sit B you would obviously allow a player to wear tights.
It certainly seems inconsistent to me to ban tights, but allow a long-sleeve undershirt.

There's no point in us wasting our time debating this. I've posed it to the NFHS rules committee. We'll let them decide. ;)

PS If you are referring to the historical aspect as "my reasoning," then I should point out that that came straight from an NFHS interp, not me.

I noticed something similar in the Oklahoma/Oklahoma State game back in January: http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...tate-game.html

Long sleeved undershirt with a logo on the bicep. How hard is it to notice this when the guy comes on the court?

Are you saying that the minute a player comes out onto the court, you are checking for every little issue that might make their uniform illegal?

I do not know about you, I do not do that. And certainly I am not looking for logos on their shirts or undershirts. Now if I see it I will address it, but it is not the first thing I am worried about. I do not think most officials are doing this either.

Peace

No, but long sleeves should be obvious to everyone. Hard to miss when he comes out for the tap.

I don't know that I disagree with so much as think mine trumps yours. :)
My understanding is that if it's not forbidden specifically, there needs to be a safety issue or an unfair advantage in order to justify banning it.

Therefore, in my opinion, unless the NFHS specifically adds a rule or case play on it, I'm letting it go.

Any more inconsistent than to regulate the color of headbands but allow any color for a hair control device?

Hot Women Love It When I Talk Legal Latin To Them ...
 

How about this loophole? A player, with blue shorts, can, by rule, wear blue tights down to just above his knees. He can also wear the longest blue socks that the can find in a store, or even have long blue socks specially made by his grandmother, from the same material as the tights, above the level of his knees. The rules, other than a single reference to black socks worn by the officials, don't address socks. Ipso facto, legal full length tights.

3-5-6: Tights shall be a single solid color similar to the predominant color of the pants; the length shall be above the knee.

3.5.6 SITUATION B: A player, for religious reasons, may not wear shorts. Would he/she be able to wear tights under the basketball uniform shorts, warmups or a skirt instead of shorts? RULING: NFHS basketball uniform rules do not require that the uniform pants be "shorts." However, undergarments or tights may not be worn which extend below the pants, therefore wearing tights “below the uniform shorts” would be illegal. The player could wear long pants or a skirt as the uniform "bottom" and be in compliance. (3-4)

Even worse, a player from the HOME team can do that! :eek:

Shorts are not required to be any particular color under NFHS rules.

Player Has Ballet Practice After The Game ...
 

They are if the player wants to wear mid length tights, in a vice-versa kind of way:
3-5-6: Tights shall be a single solid color similar to the predominant color of the pants.

Billy,
There is no rule about what color the shorts must be. You have only pointed out that if an undergarment is worn below the shorts that extends down the leg so as to be visible, then that undergarment must match the color of the shorts. It's not the other way around.

My point is that a home player can wear a white jersey, blue shorts, blue compression shorts down to just about the knee, and blue socks that extend up high. Unless a referee believes that to be confusing, this apparel is legal.

I don't like it.

What happended to my post?
 

I posted that undershirts were a POE just two seasons ago and that officials should be diligent about enforcing this rule.

Someone deleted it. :(

I don't understand why. That was valuable information, which contributed in a meaningful way to the discussion topic.

It also contained a personal attack. Feel free to post the POE again and your opinion about enforcing it.

Ok, thinking back I can certainly see that angle given the history between the two posters, but I really was trying to stick to discussing the NFHS rules and use them to refute the attitude expressed by the other poster. Of course, I do get frustrated with that sentiment, and therefore, perhaps I didn't meet that aim as fully as intended. BTW you have been doing a heck of a job lately of babysitting.

Wow! Contrition.