I worked a recreation Youth league this weekend that was working under NFHS rules. While inspecting the players in pre-game there was one player who looked like he had a pack of cigarettes tucked into his sock. I went over to ask him about this and realized this was one of those ankle locks the police can put on you. Being a rec league I ignored this and sure enough in the second half he sprained the weighted ankle and did not play the rest of the game. If this was a HS NFHS game would you have allowed the player to play with this device on his leg? What are the officials liabilities if you allow a player to play with illegal equipment and he/she gets hurt?

thanks again
GTW

Wow. I suspect the kid would not be on the team if he had to wear one of those things...anyway I would not let him play.

Could not play.
 

I am with Dan, I would not let him play.

Peace

Is it too late for me to change my answer?

Let him play
 

Basketball may be this kid's only link to healthy activities and constructive involvement. If you feel like you need it, get a liability waiver from his coach, and have the coach get one from his parents/guardians to give to the officials as well. Heck, you might even direct the coach to get a waiver from the school's league, but don't keep him from plalying. This is waaaay more important than enforcing illegal equipment rules. He's obviously got serious problems, don't keep him out of basketball on top of that. If the school/league don't make him sit, the officials shouldn't either.

In Wisconsin you would let him play. This was specifically addressed by the state office.

Quote from a weekly update to the officials:

First .... some of our young athletes are REQUIRED to wear monitoring devices on their ankles. They cannot take these bracelets of their ankles. I've instructed their coaches to tape them to their ankle and wear a sock that will cover the bracelet. Finally, they've been instructed to share this with the officials prior to the start of the game.

Re: Could not play.
 

I'd have to seriously consider whether I'd officiate this game, as well :D

Re: Let him play
 

One thing I've heard from those in the legal profession - waivers generally mean jack squat if the plantiff has a lawyer who's worth his salt.

more
 

Just to complete my posting: The player with the monitoring device looked like he was in his twenties, but he was still in the 10th grade - the rest of the league was 16 year olds and he was having his way in the game. I was worried if there was an emotional play would this kid do something violent, but that was all in my head.
As it turns out, The player was very polite through out the game and had a lot of assists. I suspect something went wrong at a young age and he is trying to right his path.

Dan- Are you saying you would not work the game if you are unfortable with the environment?

As far as clarifying for a real HS game: Are you saying the player would have to have a state waiver to play or the official would be required by rule to prevent the player with the device from playing?

Also should I tell him to be upfront about the device and tell the officials in the future, this might put them at ease?

GTW

Re: more
 

Not at all. It was intended to be humorous, implying that I wouldn't want to officiate a game with a "convict" (for lack of a better word) playing. On the contrary, I would probably work the game without even giving it a second thought.

Are we making up rules?
 

Is this monitoring jewelry? Initially I was with most of you as this initially seems to be inappropriate equipment for basketball. However.... Where does it fit in with Rule 3-5?

3-5) I don't see it as being dangerous if it is on his ankle and wrapped inside his sock.

3-5-1) It is not worn on the elbow, hand, finger, wrist or forearm.

3-5-2) It is not a decoration - head or jewelry.

3-5-3) Will provide no physical advantage.

3-5-4) Not an undershirt.

3-5-5) Not an undergarment that extends below his pants.

Perhaps we should laugh at him. Tell him he walks funny. Check his arm for track marks. Take away his gun. Condemn him to death row if possible.... BS boys.

LET HIM PLAY and make him mind.

Where's your compassion man? Let the kid do something good.

Thanks,goof! I just spit brown,foamy stuff on the screen.:D

Guess I lead a sheltered life since I have never seen ANYONE in person who wore a monitoring device. Given that, let me ask one question. How tight are these things? The only risk I can see is to the player if he gets a severe sprain or break and there is a lot of sudden swelling. Granted that is remote, but I had a girl with a bad sprain/possible break Saturday in a rec game.

If it is a remote school (or the area has slow EMS response), swelling from an injury could present circulation problems. That said, I think you have to let him play.

Re: Are we making up rules?
 

I think that the casebook(3.5SitA)covers this one pretty well:
1)"Equipment which could cut or cause an opponent to have an abrasion is always illegal and,therefore,is illegal".
2)The prohibition of the use of hard substance material does NOT apply to the upper arm,shoulder,thigh or LOWER LEG if the hard material is appropriately padded so that IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE REFEREE it is not hazardous to others".

The referee's judgement is always the determining factor.IMO,if they cover and pad it,I can't see why you wouldn't let him play.

I had this exact situation happen in a JV game last year. I didn't notice the device until we were shooting free throws midway through the first quarter. Upon detection, I went to the coach and let him know that the kid would need a sub immediately and the device would have to be taped over. No complaints from either coach, the kid or the probation officer (I assume-the cops didn't come looking for him during the game). I had the same team later in the year and the kid still had the device on his leg and it was simply taped over.

I would let him play. I would rather have him playing basketball than in the parking lot breaking into my car. Sports is the last resort to getting to these kids to walk a straight path.

Electronic teather..
 

In Michigan, no players may participate while wearing an electronic teather.

oops.. tether even
 

safety issue for the player as well as the other team. These things are very hard with sharp metalic corners.

Re: Electronic teather..
 

Please state how you came to this decision. Has the MichiganHSAA requested and received an official ruling from the NFHS?

I agree let them play. Sometimes you don't even notice that it is on them. I had a situation where a kid was wearing one and we did know until after the game was over. (He was on the bench most of the time.)

Re: oops.. tether even
 

And so are soccer style ankle guards and they are allowed.

Not a protective devise
 

Shin guards, knee braces, and so on, are different than a tether. These are worn for protection purposes, and we have guidelines for protective gear.
The MichiganHSAA will not allow tethers for any sports. Schools may petition for any uniform/equipment deviation from traditional equipment, but wearing a tether will never be allowed and has been vetoed everytime.
Rule 3-5 covers it pretty well.
I believe that the boy should be allowed to play sans the tether. If his PO, coach, and parents believe that basketball is a great release for him, and they know he'll be at a game, allow it to be removed for his games. That way he cannot injure himself, or others.

Re: Not a protective devise
 

You still haven't answered my original question: Please verify your statement concerning the MichiganHSAA. I am registered with the MichiganHSAA and have never seen a ruling from them or the NFHS concerning the ankle tether that is being discussed in this thread.

Re: Re: Not a protective devise
 

Mark T.,
She needed a ruling last year, made the phone call and got it. She's not guessin' here. She doesn't work that way.
mick

Re: Re: Re: Not a protective devise
 

I am sorry if I am still skeptical because it is stated MichiganHSAA policy that there is no official ruling from the MichiganHSAA puts it in writing and until the MichiganHSAA puts it in writing and distributes to all of its officials, her statement holds not water for me.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a protective devise
 

Mark T.,
"No official ruling"... exactly.
That's why we haven't read it.
That's why they haven't written it.
...And Viet Nam was not a war.
It was what it was.
Make the call, maybe it's changed now, but don't doubt that her information is real.
mick

These monitoring devices were certainly legal in 1984. ;)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a protective devise
 

[/QUOTE]

...And Viet Nam was not a war.
[/QUOTE]

You sure in the hell could have fooled me. :(

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not a protective devise
 

...And Viet Nam was not a war.
[/QUOTE]

You sure in the hell could have fooled me. :( [/QUOTE]

...Exactly.