What say you?

Jurassic Referee · #1 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 19, 2011, 08:03am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Why under her shorts? Why not just long pants, sans shorts?

+1

See case book 3.5.6SitB. You can wear legally wear long pants instead of shorts. Anything under the shorts and extending below the shorts is generally illegal.

Adam · #2 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 19, 2011, 08:04am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

+1

See case book 3.5.6SitB. You can wear legally wear long pants instead of shorts. Anything under the shorts and extending below the shorts is generally illegal.

While this is true, if a player tells me she's wearing pants (under her shorts) for religious purposes, I'm letting her play. I'll send a note to my assigner and the state after the game.

Jurassic Referee · #3 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 19, 2011, 08:28am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

While this is true, if a player tells me she's wearing pants (under her shorts) for religious purposes, I'm letting her play. I'll send a note to my assigner and the state after the game.

And you would be taking a chance imo because you're going directly against a definitive NFHS ruling if you did so. The FED has said that wearing tights below the shorts for religious purposes is illegal. Anything worn that extends below the uniform shorts is illegal. Wearing long pants, tights, a skirt, etc, instead of shorts is legal.

Adam · #4 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 19, 2011, 08:33am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And you would be taking a chance imo because you're going directly against a definitive NFHS ruling if you did so. The FED has said that wearing tights below the shorts for religious purposes is illegal. Anything worn that extends below the uniform shorts is illegal. Wearing long pants, tights, a skirt, etc, instead of shorts is legal.

I realize she could wear jeans if she wanted to, as long as there's no more than one manufacturer's logo and it's no more than 2.25 inches squared.

I'd be taking a chance either way, and from what I've seen from CHSAA on this issue in the past, it would be less of a chance my way. They tend to rule towards allowing things like this (non-safety issues) for religious reasons.

Jurassic Referee · #5 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 19, 2011, 08:46am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I realize she could wear jeans if she wanted to, as long as there's no more than one manufacturer's logo and it's no more than 2.25 inches squared.

I'd be taking a chance either way, and from what I've seen from CHSAA on this issue in the past, it would be less of a chance my way. They tend to rule towards allowing things like this (non-safety issues) for religious reasons.

But it's already been ruled by the NFHS that she can't legally wear jeans under her shorts, even for religious reasons. I honestly can't see any state going against a definitive NFHS ruling like that when all the player has to do to be legally dressed is remove the shorts and just wear the long pants. And you're not taking a chance with telling the player that either because you have specific language to that effect in that case play to back you up.

bob jenkins · #6 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 19, 2011, 08:56am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I honestly can't see any state going against a definitive NFHS ruling like that when all the player has to do to be legally dressed is remove the shorts and just wear the long pants.

I can.

(But I don't know what they have done in snaqwell's state.)

Terrapins Fan · #7 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 19, 2011, 10:01am

She wore the long pants and long shirt under her uniform for religious reasons. ( modesty )

She was their best player. I wasn't going to argue that she couldn't, I could see there being a law suit for discrimination.

Plus, they were both tight to the skin, nothing hanging loose.

She played like that for 4 years and is now in college, I expect playing somewhere.

Jurassic Referee · #8 (**permalink**) Wed Jan 19, 2011, 10:33am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I can.

(But I don't know what they have done in snaqwell's state.)

But would you have allowed it without having a ruling from the state?

Or would you just say "Why not just wear the long pants and forget about the shorts?" Imo doing that that would keep any reasonable person happy while meeting the rule at the same time.

Why take a chance that the state might disagree with you when you really don't have to? Doesn't make sense to me. But....that's just me.