Artists in residence?

[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...

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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 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.

[Juulie Downs]

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.

Padgett hasn't dragged out the ol' cruise ship/international dateline/3 seconds thing. THAT's pretty much the last page in the appendix, imo.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Juulie Downs

Padgett hasn't dragged out the ol' cruise ship/international dateline/3 seconds thing. THAT's pretty much the last page in the appendix, imo.

Actually, Juulie, I'm thinking of updating it to something having to do with changing dimensions.