Artists in residence?

[Mark Padgett]

Back when I was in HS (before dirt was invented and it was OK to dunk in pregame), our team had an incredibly intimidating warm up at home. The other team would be out warming up, when suddenly all the gym lights would go off. The fans started to make noise. Then, a spotlight hit the door to our locker room. It would open and our team would run out one at a time, and burst through a huge paper hoop with an outline of Illinois and a big star on it where our town was. The lights would then come on just as the band started playing our pep song. The first three guys would then run the length of the court dribbling, then dunk the ball and the fans would go nuts. The other team would just stand there looking with their mouths wide open. The game was almost over right then.

I guess they could still do all that except the dunking.

[BillyMac]

Sporting Behavior Pre-Game Situations was a NFHS Point of Emphasis in 2002-03. It was again a Point of Emphasis in 2003-04. In both cases the NFHS suggested that state or local athletic conferences should establish appropriate pregame procedures, and protocols.

Here in Connecticut our state high school athletic governing body (CIAC) came out with this: Team members are not allowed to congregate at midcourt during introductions. Officials will direct players to free throw line area in front of respective benches.

Here is a case where the national organization seems to have allowed each state to come up with it's own guidelines. This may be why we don't have consistency from state to state.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Smitty

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

It wasn't such a stretch back in 1996-97:

1996-97 NFHS Points of Emphasis: Permanent tattoos pose problems if they are objectionable for one reason or another. School administrators and/or coaches have an obligation to have objectionable markings of a permanent type covered. It is not in the best interest of the game to have officials placed in a position where from game to game they must rule on what is objectionable. Obviously, officials can and will make these decisions when outright vulgarity or obscenity is involved or when such markings violate sportsmanship and/or taunting or baiting regulations.

Remember, offensive was never part of the point of emphasis. Only school administrators and/or coaches had too deal with objectionable tattoos. Officials were only asked to deal with vulgar, or obscene tattoos, and such tattoos also had to violate sportsmanship and/or taunting or baiting regulations.

I do agree that it's a slippery slope.

[tjones1]

I remember the reminder that came out right before Regionals. As M&M said, it was stated they wanted it enforced.

Interesting... I learned something today!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Remember, offensive was never part of the point of emphasis. Only school administrators and/or coaches had too deal with objectionable tattoos. Officials were only asked to deal with vulgar, or obscene tattoos, and such tattoos also had to violate sportsmanship and/or taunting or baiting regulations.

A further thought. If two white supremacist basketball teams were playing each other, and both had anti-African American tattoos, displaying vulgar language, the officials would simply ignore the tattoos because they wouldn't be considered taunting or baiting in a game involving these two white supremacist, anti-African American, teams?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A further thought. If two white supremacist basketball teams were playing each other, and both had anti-African American tattoos, displaying vulgar language, the officials would simply ignore the tattoos because they wouldn't be considered taunting or baiting in a game involving these two white supremacist, anti-African American, teams?

Sheesh! Are we really this hard up for something to discuss? The season cannot get here quickly enough.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Sheesh! Are we really this hard up for something to discuss? The season cannot get here quickly enough.

Amen brother BITS!

Hey, what are the best new ref sneakers this year? What is the best carrying case for my equipt? (Haven't seen them yet this yr.)

Oh yeah, can I also have the answer for question #3 on Part 1 of the exam? Oh yeah,true!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Sheesh! Are we really this hard up for something to discuss? The season cannot get here quickly enough.

Well, as much as I might usually pile on the bandwagon to give Billy a hard time, he does bring up a valid point: who gets to decide what is vulgar and obscene in each context? In the context of the (obviously fictional) game he describes, the only person who finds the tattoos offensive is the official, so does the official get to make the determination that the players have to cover the tat's, even though none of the players find them offensive? What if one of the players has a tat that says, "PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals", and another player is a vegetarian and finds it offensive; should the player cover that tat because only one other person finds it offensive, while the rest of us consider it a good joke?

Btw, I don't have a good answer; I've only got questions. I don't know how we keep everyone happy without offending anyone. Maybe that's why the Fed. determined there should be some rule and standard in place, but left it up to each state to determine where to actually draw the line in the sand. I think, in reality, most of us ignore stuff like that unless it is so obvious to everyone it cannot be ignored.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

The season cannot get here quickly enough.

Originally Posted by grunewar

Amen.

Amen, and might I add, Hallelujah.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Who gets to decide what is vulgar and obscene in each context? I don't have a good answer; I've only got questions.

That's why it's called a slippery slope.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I think, in reality, most of us ignore stuff like that unless it is so obvious to everyone it cannot be ignored.

Amen.

[Mark Padgett]

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it....." --- US Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart

Is the face paint offensive? Are the tattoos offensive? I guess it's up to us based on our individual opinions. And what about signs in the crowd? Are we supposed to deal with those, too?

BTW - best sign ever - UCLA/USC basketball game on TV, UCLA fan had sign that read "FLUSH USED TROJANS".

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sporting Behavior Pre-Game Situations was a NFHS Point of Emphasis in 2002-03. It was again a Point of Emphasis in 2003-04. In both cases the NFHS suggested that state or local athletic conferences should establish appropriate pregame procedures, and protocols.

Here in Connecticut our state high school athletic governing body (CIAC) came out with this: Team members are not allowed to congregate at midcourt during introductions. Officials will direct players to free throw line area in front of respective benches.

Here is a case where the national organization seems to have allowed each state to come up with it's own guidelines. This may be why we don't have consistency from state to state.

Personally I do not care what other states do and I do not know why you would either. I do not work for teams in other states and if a state wants to have a policy I am all for it. If I go to Connecticut to work a game, it will not be at the high school level.

This still illustrates to me why you should not be relying on a 13-14 year old casebook interpretation. You just showed that later they came back and decided that states had to come up with some guidelines. And I recall that my state allowed the home team leeway to come to the center and they also did not prohibit players to shake hands with the team in the center either. Most introductions I see now have the starters running over to shake the hands of the opposing coach and often trying to shake hands with the officials. I do not think I would ever have a problem with that expression of sportsmanship.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You just showed that later they came back and decided that states had to come up with some guidelines.

It wasn't later. It was suggested that states come up with their own guidelines the very first year it was a point of emphasis, 2002-03, and was reiterated in 2003-04. Pretty much the exact same wording in both years. In any case, it wasn't later.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This still illustrates to me why you should not be relying on a 13-14 year old casebook interpretation.

We're not talking about a casebook interpretation, we're talking about a point of emphasis. Emphasis, as in something that is given great stress or importance.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

My state allowed the home team leeway to come to the center and they also did not prohibit players to shake hands with the team in the center either.

Which is exactly what the NFHS wanted your state to do: "The state or local athletic conference should establish appropriate pregame procedures and protocols. A policy could be established confining teams to their own free throw semicircle for pregame huddles or rituals or that only the home team utilizes the center circle".