Artists in residence?

[BillyMac]

JRutledge: Thanks for your explanation. I never thought that your posts regarding this were your personal opinion. I always thought that you were relaying knowledge that you gained access to from a credible local, state, or national source.

That being said, if I walk out for a game, and while observing the layup lines, I observe a player with a tattoo that is truly, 100% no doubt in my mind, racist, sexist, homophobic, obscene, vulgar, etc., so as to be deemed by me to be unsportsmanlike, taunting, or baiting, I'm citing the 1996-97 NFHS Point of Emphasis and I will ask the player to tape over the tattoo, and if he, or she, doesn't comply, they're not playing in my game. I'm 100% sure that, in my little corner of Connecticut, those in authority will back me up. I also believe that there may be different guidelines in your neck of the woods, be it local, or state.

Just out of curiosity, if presented with the same player, with the same tattoo, that you are 100% sure is racist, sexist, homophobic, obscene, vulgar, etc., and deemed to be unsportsmanlike, taunting, or baiting, what would you do in your neck of the woods?

Also, I like your idea of a NFHS online database, but not an archive, because I would like interpretations that are no longer valid due to rule changes, to be removed, or reworded.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Just out of curiosity, if presented with the same player, with the same tattoo, that you are 100% sure is racist, sexist, homophobic, obscene, vulgar, etc., and deemed to be unsportsmanlike, taunting, or baiting, what would you do in your neck of the woods?

Let him or her play and fill out and send a "special report form" to the state.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Let him or her play and fill out and send a "special report form" to the state.

In my neck of the woods, we've been told that we should direct them to cover it or they will not play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Just out of curiosity, if presented with the same player, with the same tattoo, that you are 100% sure is racist, sexist, homophobic, obscene, vulgar, etc., and deemed to be unsportsmanlike, taunting, or baiting, what would you do in your neck of the woods?

Like Bob said we have a way to inform our state of those kinds of issues. I would contact them and let them handle it. And I am not looking for what tattoos say or looking at their meaning. And all tattoos are not easy to see and I am honestly not trying to go looking for crap. Then I would the state take a position on this issue. But I can tell you there were people that tried to enforce rules based on uniform only to have our state take a position to allow religious expression as an example.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Welpe

In my neck of the woods, we've been told that we should direct them to cover it or they will not play.

NFHS 10-3-6-C: A player shall not: Bait or taunt an opponent. NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not looking for what tattoos say or looking at their meaning. And all tattoos are not easy to see and I am honestly not trying to go looking for crap.

You're right. I've got a lot more important things look for during the pregame warmup period, court safety issues, number of players, illegal equipment, illegal uniforms, dunking, tendencies of players, etc. Trying to figure out exactly what a tattoo says is not one of my top priorities, but if a coach, or site director, points out an obvious problem, then I've got a rule (NFHS 10-3-6-C), and an old point of emphasis (1996-97 Point of Emphasis) that will allow me to deal with it, and then follow it up with a report to my assigner, and our state high school sports governing body.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I've learned it is always better to stick with the rules.

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Not enforcing rules causes problems, especially for the next official that has their game and has the same situation come up.

[M&M Guy]

Hey, how did I get stuck in the middle of this?!?

Well, ok, as long as I'm here...

To me this highlights a very interesting problem about the NFHS rules. I've been under the impression that old interps and case plays do, in fact, continue to be valid, even though they might not be currently printed in the book and they have not been overruled by a new rule or case play. That's why Nevada's posts on previous year's interps has been very useful. But I also think JRut has a point, in that there are interps that are no longer valid, even though there has been nothing issued in writing stating so.

A few years back there was a big emphasis against pre-game taunting, to the point where teams had to stay on their own end of the court during warmups, couldn't come out of the locker room and run around the other team, couldn't go past center court during intoductions, etc. I had a situation last season where, during pregame warmups, one team went back to the locker room, so the other team started full-court layup drills. I told that team they had to stay on their end, and they looked at me like I had two heads. (Sometimes I do, but I didn't at that particular moment.) I explained the ruling to the coach, and he had never heard of it. He was a young guy, only been coaching for a few years, so he probably wasn't around when the ruling was first issued. When I checked with the state office a few days later, I was told that wasn't in effect any more. But they also admitted there was nothing put out in writing stating it was no longer in effect. This may be the exact same situation with the tattoo issue - it was there before, but somehow went away without anything written as such.

So, I still stand by my statement that it's always best to follow the rules. But sometimes there's confusion as to what rules are actually in effect.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

NFHS 10-3-6-C: A player shall not: Bait or taunt an opponent. NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.

It is a real stretch to consider a tattoo to be taunting. What if your religious tattoos offend me? It's a slippery slope...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Hey, how did I get stuck in the middle of this?!?

Well, ok, as long as I'm here...

To me this highlights a very interesting problem about the NFHS rules. I've been under the impression that old interps and case plays do, in fact, continue to be valid, even though they might not be currently printed in the book and they have not been overruled by a new rule or case play. That's why Nevada's posts on previous year's interps has been very useful. But I also think JRut has a point, in that there are interps that are no longer valid, even though there has been nothing issued in writing stating so.

A few years back there was a big emphasis against pre-game taunting, to the point where teams had to stay on their own end of the court during warmups, couldn't come out of the locker room and run around the other team, couldn't go past center court during intoductions, etc. I had a situation last season where, during pregame warmups, one team went back to the locker room, so the other team started full-court layup drills. I told that team they had to stay on their end, and they looked at me like I had two heads. (Sometimes I do, but I didn't at that particular moment.) I explained the ruling to the coach, and he had never heard of it. He was a young guy, only been coaching for a few years, so he probably wasn't around when the ruling was first issued. When I checked with the state office a few days later, I was told that wasn't in effect any more. But they also admitted there was nothing put out in writing stating it was no longer in effect. This may be the exact same situation with the tattoo issue - it was there before, but somehow went away without anything written as such.

So, I still stand by my statement that it's always best to follow the rules. But sometimes there's confusion as to what rules are actually in effect.

You know the IHSA had a different take on that ruling right? Because it was allowed for the home team to come onto the court and circle the court as long as they did not disrupt the other team's warm-ups (clarification). And schools like Quincy High School were allowed to have a pre-game ceremony they have had for years with their mascot as well.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You know the IHSA had a different take on that ruling right? Because it was allowed for the home team to come onto the court and circle the court as long as they did not disrupt the other team's warm-ups (clarification). And schools like Quincy High School were allowed to have a pre-game ceremony they have had for years with their mascot as well.

Peace

Well, I do now, but it wasn't made clear back when the ruling first came out. In fact, I seem to remember it was just the opposite during that first post-season, in that officials were specifically reminded to enforce the sportsmanship rules during Regionals. So, when did it change? How were officials notified? I don't recall seeing it on the IHSA website, and I certainly don't remember it being mentioned during pre-season rule interp meetings since then. Perhaps someone told Quincy HS that they can continue with their ceremony, but they neglected to tell the rest of us?

That's why I don't doubt you when you say the rules on tattoos no longer are in effect for us. It is a little frustrating when a change is made that recinds a prior ruling without an actual change in the rulebook or specific case play highlighting the change. So, is that an IHSA change, or an NFHS change? Since there is no specific change in the rules, where can I point to when someone asks what the current ruling actually is?

[Back In The Saddle]

With all due respect to Jeff's source and his source's personal opinion on the matter, I'm just not buying the "if it ain't still in the book, it ain't still in force" argument. If somebody with authority to change a case or interp hasn't done so, I am not going to just assume it isn't still in force just because it silently disappeared from view. The only way for that to work is for every official to perform a complete, side-by-side comparison of every publication and press release from the NFHS every year to determine what is no longer there. If the NFHS' policy truly is that old cases and inters are "out of sight, out of force" they would have said so. Very publicly.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Well, I do now, but it wasn't made clear back when the ruling first came out. In fact, I seem to remember it was just the opposite during that first post-season, in that officials were specifically reminded to enforce the sportsmanship rules during Regionals. So, when did it change? How were officials notified? I don't recall seeing it on the IHSA website, and I certainly don't remember it being mentioned during pre-season rule interp meetings since then. Perhaps someone told Quincy HS that they can continue with their ceremony, but they neglected to tell the rest of us?

It did not change at all; the IHSA clarified their position to the NF rule (which is their right to do). This was discussed at a couple of rules meetings that I attended personally the year the NF changed the rule. The IHSA just said they can go around the court as long as they do not go through a warm up or do things to directly intimidate. And the Quincy High School thing (I will look for an example on YouTube) was because during their pre-game they use the entire court. There are a lot of schools in Illinois I know that use the entire court for introductions and if I also recall the IHSA said that the home team can go to the middle of the court which I believe the NF rule was not clear about.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

That's why I don't doubt you when you say the rules on tattoos no longer are in effect for us. It is a little frustrating when a change is made that recinds a prior ruling without an actual change in the rulebook or specific case play highlighting the change. So, is that an IHSA change, or an NFHS change? Since there is no specific change in the rules, where can I point to when someone asks what the current ruling actually is?

The tattoo issue was changed by the NF as I remember it, not any one state organization. It had too many problems if I recall to have an across the board policy when you have so many different religious, and ethnic concerns across the country. I believe they put the responsibility in the state organizations to have policies to deal with tattoos and not have a specific national rule. And if you do not see the interpretation in the current casebooks, chances are something about this changed.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

With all due respect to Jeff's source and his source's personal opinion on the matter, I'm just not buying the "if it ain't still in the book, it ain't still in force" argument. If somebody with authority to change a case or interp hasn't done so, I am not going to just assume it isn't still in force just because it silently disappeared from view. The only way for that to work is for every official to perform a complete, side-by-side comparison of every publication and press release from the NFHS every year to determine what is no longer there. If the NFHS' policy truly is that old cases and inters are "out of sight, out of force" they would have said so. Very publicly.

You do not have to buy it. As Tony said the casebook rarely changes. Plays stay in the book for years and practically never change because the rules surrounding them have not changed. Remember we are only talking about 3 to 4 rules changes and some minor editorial changes each year. The types of things that change are often so minor in basketball that the interpretations that need to be changed might affect one play. Now when it comes to a sport like football and they change a penalty enforcement rule, many plays are affected and the NF Football Committee has had to strike out plays in the casebook because they were in current casebooks that did not reflect the current rules changes.

And you are also assuming that the NF is different than any other bureaucracy to inform the people that use their information. So to say they would do something publicly is a stretch when we cannot get other national organizations or governmental agencies to give public information.

I will say this again, this was not my opinion. I was told this by a person that sat on the actual NF committee in a sport when an old ruling was advocated on this board and I asked for clarification to how it applies today. And I specifically asked about why a ruling was not in the current casebook and his answer was, "The NF purposely takes out or adds plays to the casebook."

At the end of the day, you have to answer to your higher ups. I think it is silly to expect everyone is going to know there was a book 20 years ago that says to do something when the NF seems to be aware of what they took out or put in their current books. And often rulings that are on their website end up in the casebook.

Peace

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It did not change at all; the IHSA clarified their position to the NF rule (which is their right to do). This was discussed at a couple of rules meetings that I attended personally the year the NF changed the rule. The IHSA just said they can go around the court as long as they do not go through a warm up or do things to directly intimidate.

Here's exactly where my problem lies - I know that in the rules meeting I attended when this first came out, we were told to follow the NFHS guidelines. And, I do remember specifically being reminded right before post-season that the guidelines were still to be followed, at least in our area. So, someone at the IHSA thought the NFHS guidelines were too strict, but didn't make clear to all the clinicians that the guidelines were not to be followed to the letter. And, I would still like you to show me where I can find this IHSA clarification, in writing? Is it in the Official's Handbook? Is it on the website somewhere?

I agree the IHSA has a right to make clarifications, it's just that the communication is not very clear.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Here's exactly where my problem lies - I know that in the rules meeting I attended when this first came out, we were told to follow the NFHS guidelines. And, I do remember specifically being reminded right before post-season that the guidelines were still to be followed, at least in our area. So, someone at the IHSA thought the NFHS guidelines were too strict, but didn't make clear to all the clinicians that the guidelines were not to be followed to the letter. And, I would still like you to show me where I can find this IHSA clarification, in writing? Is it in the Official's Handbook? Is it on the website somewhere?

I agree the IHSA has a right to make clarifications, it's just that the communication is not very clear.

I do not think this was an issue of strictness from the NF, I think the IHSA clarified their position on the issue and gave more specific situations how the rule should be enforced. If I remember correctly, the NF was pretty vague as they have been in the past what was actually a violations of the rule on this and other issues.

And I can tell you as a clinician with the state, we are told many of the same things. But like a lot of things people hear what they want to hear and do more editorializing of what the rules say. I actually work in the conferences the head clinician assign and I attend his camp every year, so I have access along with many other clinicians in this area to the person that helps shape those rulings and mechanics. And over a year ago the IHSA called all state clinicians to Bloomington to clarify mechanics and appropriate rules applications. There is always going to be a person or two in a room of nearly a 100 people that heard the wrong thing.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Here is an example of what I was referring to. BTW, I worked this game this was taped.

Peace