Artists in residence?

[Amesman]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[Adam]

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

[Back In The Saddle]

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.

[Hugh Refner]

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!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

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

[Amesman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

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.

[BillyMac]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

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)

[BillyMac]

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

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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)

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

[BillyMac]

(With apologies to General Douglas MacArthur)

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

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.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

According to what I have been told these old rulings no longer apply anyway. 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.

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.

[JRutledge]

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