Artists in residence?
 

A recent news item brought to mind: Are there any limitations or rules regarding a player using face paint (or anywhere else on the body, for that matter)? Seems it would be under 3-4 through 3-7 if so but nothing seems to address it. Given all the uniform and color policing, it seems this would/could have been an issue at some point.

You have a right to rule on things that are not specifically in the rulebook (The Referee to be specific). I would not allow such a thing for the simple fact this could come off on the ball or the floor. And I do not think many coaches would allow this as well as it is inappropriate for the game of basketball in my opinion.

Peace

I'm with Rut. And immediately after the game (maybe even at halftime), I'd call the appropriate authority for your association or state.

NFHS 3-5-1: The referee shall not permit any team member to wear equipment or apparel which, in his/her judgment, is dangerous or confusing to other players or is not appropriate.

I realize this doesn't address face paint. However, I think it provides an easily defensible basis for the referee to make a 2-3 ruling disallowing face paint based on it being "not appropriate" for basketball.

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment here. If you allow makeup on girls, can you not allow face paint on boys? What's the difference (in theory, that is)? Are you going to allow "makeup" on boys? What if a girl has on face paint and says it's just part of her makeup?

See what we might be getting into? YIKES!

Face paint and makeup is not quite the same thing. And honestly I cannot think of many times I have ever seen girls wearing makeup during and athletic contest. Then again you have just giving me one more reason to stay away from girl's basketball if this is an issue. Thanks for the heads up. ;)

Peace

Heard about some girls in another sport apparently getting quite creative with the paint (not make-up) so it has happened to some degree. ... this could mean holiday images or other ... but what also if some really "out there" kid (I'm leaning toward the boys on this) wanted to paint his face all blue or with other intimidating touches (school color or not). That's kind of what got the OP flowing. Good answers so far. Thanks.

Speaking of other sports...our state's governing body has banned face paint and glitter in volleyball.

As for face paint v. makeup, it is different. And you and I know it is. And it's you and I that have the authority to rule on this. And we get the final say, at least for that game.

Tatts ...
 

This post is not about face painting, but it's about another form of skin decoration that the NFHS has ruled upon. Remember this:

1996-97 NFHS Basketball Rule Book, page 70, 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.

Billy,

If I recall they changed that ruling in the following years because tattoos are permanent. I do not think that even applies anymore.

Peace

Doubting Thomas ...
 

JRutledge: Of course permanent tattoos are permanent, but the point of emphasis states that they can be covered. Coaches, with, or without, the backing of the NFHS, or NCAA, have done this for years with their players. Dru Joyce did ths with LeBron James at St. Vincent-St. Mary High School, and Geno Auriemma does this at the University of Connecticut. Although I find you to be a very credible poster, I don't recall anything coming form the NFHS since 1996-97 regarding tattoos, either confirming this point of emphasis, or overturning this point of emphasis, so, as is my usual request, with all due respect, citation please.

"Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe" (John 20:25)

I'm No Stranger To Tatts ...
 

Here are mine. Guess my religion, and my ancestry, and pick a prize off the top shelf.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3530/...0b406d2b_m.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2548/...ab22ba5b_m.jpg

Well I am not going to have a citation because that was well over 10 years ago and according to what I have been told these old rulings no longer apply anyway. I am just saying that this ruling was about 13-14 years ago and I remember them modifying the interpretation on this because it would cause so many legal and religious problems. And unless you can find something more recent or current, I would be careful trying to use this so it applied in today's game. I was told a few years ago if there is an interpretation no longer in the casebook there is a reason for this.

Also the Lebron James situation I remember. This was the school's decision to have his tattoos covered up, not the officials or the OHSAA. I even remember this being discussed in the broadcasts at the time and on here. We may have to go back and do a search, but I am almost positive this was discussed here in some detail.

I am sorry I just have a fundamental problem with these very old rulings that only officials like you that keep these rulebooks for several years can find. There are many officials that have not started officiating yet and have no idea where this ruling is or if it even applies.

Peace

Old Interpretations Never Die, They Just Fade Away ...
 

(With apologies to General Douglas MacArthur)

Agree. How can rookie officials get access to points of emphasis, that may have only appeared in a single year's rulebook, or annual interpretations, that may never make their way, permanently, into the casebook? Case in point. I remember when heel activated lights in sneakers first came out. The NFHS came out with an immediate ruling, I believe that it was a midseason ruling, that these were not appropriate. It took several years for this ruling to make its way, permanently, into the casebook. Rookie officials who started officiating in the time period between the immediate ruling, and when the ruling became a permanent part of the casebook, would have no way to know about this interpretation.

I'm not sure that I fully agree with you here. Yes, there is always a reason for an interpretation not being in the casebook. One reason is for a rule change that made the casebook play no longer applicable. Another reason is a mistake by the editor, as in the rulebook mistake about the captain requesting a lineup after many substitutes reporting, which was left out of the rulebook for several years until the error was realized. Another may be to simply conserve space, if some case plays weren't deleted occasionally, the casebook would be much longer than it's present length. I'm not convinced that just because a interpretation is no longer in the casebook that it is always no longer valid. If you can find a citation, or some other form of evidence, to convince me that such rulings are no longer valid, please do so.

At some point the the NFHS must address this problem, that is, rookie officials having the same access to rules, and interpretations, that we veterans have, such as notes that we all take at our local association meetings, often regarding interpretations that our local association interpreters receive from the NFHS, either through meetings, conference calls, emails, etc., that never find a permanent "home", that is, published, somewhere.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3510/...370f733d_m.jpg

Billy,

I was told by someone that actually sat on a rules committee about how the process works. It is not based on my personal opinion (there was an issue with a ruling that we talked about in my state a few years back). I was specifically told that if the ruling is not in the current casebook, they have been changed for a reason and likely do not apply. And I would feel really weary about using a ruling that is over 10 years old for all kinds of reasons. Maybe if the ruling came out a couple of years ago then I could understand. But the ruling you gave was the year I started officiating, I would not feel comfortable saying that is valid because so many interpretations have changed and been modified since then.

And I agree that the NF needs to do more to keep up with old rulings better than they currently do. They could keep an online database.

Peace

Across State Lines ...
 

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.

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.

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

Don't Go Looking For Trouble, But If It Comes To You ???
 

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.

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.

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. ;)

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fvhWJXTxLyM&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fvhWJXTxLyM&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

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

Peace

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.

Inconsistent Procedures ???
 

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.

Slippery When Wet ???
 

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.

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! :)

One Extreme ???
 

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. ;)

Amen brother BITS!

Hey, what are the best new ref sneakers this year? What is the best carrying case for my equipt? :D (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!

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.

It's Almost Here ...
 

Amen, and might I add, Hallelujah.

Slippery Slope ...
 

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

Amen.

"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". :D

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

See You Later Alligator ...
 

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.

Emphasis ...
 

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.

Good Sportsmanship In The Land Of Lincoln ...
 

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".

The Constitution State ...
 

I don't care about other states. I don't plan on moving any time soon. I just stated how Connecticut handled the 2002-03, and 2003-04, points of emphasis suggesting that each state establish appropriate pregame procedures and protocols.

Connecticut is a 100% IAABO state. We have four "Connecticut only" mechanics:
Point to floor for two-point field goal try when shooter has foot touching three point line.
No long switches when foul is called in the backcourt and there is no change of possession or direction.
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.
Coaching Box must be marked. If home coach and/or home management refuse to designate coaching box with tape, the home team will not use a coaching box for that game. However, the visiting team will be allowed a coaching box. Notify Board Secretary, or Commissioner the next day.

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. :eek: