Illinois Uniform Modifications

[JRutledge]

12/12 Important Basketball Uniform Rule update

Despite the efforts of the IHSA Office to work with schools and officials since the 2007-08 school term, there continues to be a problem with illegal uniforms and consistent enforcement of the uniform rule in basketball in Illinois. As a result, the IHSA Board of Directors modified the following three parts of the NFHS Basketball Uniform Rule 3-4 for the 2011-12 season:

1. Rule 3-4-1e: modified this section to say, “Side inserts, including trim/piping/accent color(s), shall not extend into either the front or back torso of the jersey to a point closer than one inch of any number.”
2. Rule 3-4-4b: modified this section to say, “Lettering above or below a number on the front torso of a jersey may be arched, but the first and last letters must be on the same horizontal plane and neither shall extend beyond the mid-point of the number.”
3. Rule 3-4-4d: modified this section to say, “Any point on any letter, decorative accent in an identifying name, or decorative accent not part of an identifying name shall not be closer than one inch to any point on any number(s).

Based on the information provided to our office over the years, the vast majority of uniforms that have been determined to be illegal have been deemed illegal for one of the above listed reasons. Modifying these portions of the current rule will bring the vast majority of schools, if not all schools, into compliance with the rule and still maintain the integrity of the number on the jersey, which has long been the goal of the NFHS rule in general.

These revisions will not affect current rules requiring the torso of a jersey to be a single solid color or the requirement that home teams must wear white jerseys. Due to this action by the IHSA Board of Directors, all waivers previously granted by the IHSA Office are now no longer needed by schools. This action taken by the IHSA Board of Directors is not to be interpreted to mean that Rule 3-4 is being ‘waived’ in portion or totality. If schools are still wearing uniforms that fail to comply with the revised uniform rule, those schools are to be penalized in accordance with NFHS Basketball Rule 10-5.

Included with this posting are a series of images that are intended to depict each of the modifications. The images are admittedly rudimentary and are not intended to confuse anyone; they are provided to offer a visual representation of the Board’s modifications. If the text or the images are confusing, school administrators, coaches, or officials should contact the IHSA Office.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears this has become a major problem. They also provided 3 pictures to show the changes. I might post when I have time to show what they want changed.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

I'm curious if other states are having uniform issues. If not, is it because the uniforms are legal, or becuause the rule is being enforced less than strictly by-the-book.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm curious if other states are having uniform issues. If not, is it because the uniforms are legal, or becuause the rule is being enforced less than strictly by-the-book.

I would guess it's because the S in IHSA stands for stick-up-the-butt.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I would guess it's because the S in IHSA stands for stick-up-the-butt.

I do not put that on the entire organization. This could have been solved a long time ago. That is all I will say.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Bob, I would venture to say that the rules are not being as strictly enforced.

Also, since the other thread on this was closed, I wish to clarify my position. I agree that the penalty is a TF charged to the head coach of the offending team. I simply disagree with assessing it prior to the ball becoming live. Strictly speaking the officials should toss the ball and blow it dead, then assess the T. This is because the NFHS has several play rulings defining what it means "to participate" and the rule prohibits the coach allowing a team member "to participate" while wearing an illegal uniform.

Now most people probably will just charge the T and skip the jumpball, but that doesn't make it proper protocol.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This is because the NFHS has several play rulings defining what it means "to participate" and the rule prohibits the coach allowing a team member "to participate" while wearing an illegal uniform.

Citations please. I'm having trouble defining "participating", according to the NFHS. I have been asked to write an article for our local newsletter regarding six players "participating" and I'm having trouble figuring out what "participate" means, by NFHS rules.

[Nevadaref]

It should mean becoming a player, but the NFHS didn't write the rules that way, so it actually means to be on the court during a live ball. Being beckoned in and becoming a player is not enough.

3.5.6 SITUATION A:

Substitute A6 is beckoned and enters the court to replace
A1. A6 is wearing: (a) compression shorts below the game pants which extend
below the knees; (b) cut-off jeans extending below the game pants; or (c) jewelry.

RULING:

The items in (a), (b) and (c) are illegal and A6 will not be allowed to
participate while wearing the items. No penalty is involved. A6 simply cannot

participate until the illegal items are removed. (3-5-7)

3.6.1 SITUATION:

A6 enters the game with an excessive manufacturer’s or
school’s logo on his/her: (a) socks; or (b) wristbands. RULING: Legal in (a). In
(b), A6 may not participate and is directed to return to the bench until legally
equipped. COMMENT: The restriction on visible manufacturer’s or school’s logo
size is in effect on pants/skirts, compression shorts, wristbands and headbands.
The shoes and socks are not considered part of the uniform for purpose of visible

logo size.

4.34.3 SITUATION:

Substitute A6 reports to the scorer to replace player A1 and
awaits entry to the game. The U2 beckons A6 onto the court, and (a) A6 enters
the court to participate; (b) A6 enters the court and commits an unsporting, noncontact

foul; or (c) A1 swears at the official while heading to the bench. RULING:

A6 became a player upon being beckoned by the official and entering the court.
Legal in (a). In (b) A6, now a player, is penalized with a technical foul which is
added to the team foul total. In (c) A1, now bench personnel, is penalized with a
technical foul, which is added to the team foul total and also charged as an indirect

technical foul to the head coach.

10.5.3 SITUATION:

A5 has just received his/her fifth foul of the game. A5 (a) is
erroneously permitted to remain in the game for another two minutes before the
scorer realizes the mistake; or (b) leaves the game after the coach is notified of
the disqualification. At the intermission between the third and fourth quarter, A5
reports as a substitute and subsequently enters the game. RULING: In (a), as
soon as the error is discovered, the player is removed from the game, no penalties

are assessed. In (b), A5 will not actually "participate" until the ball becomes

live. If detected prior to the ball becoming live, A5 would be directed to the bench
and no penalty assessed unless the official deemed it was a deliberate attempt to
circumvent the rules. If detected after the ball becomes live, it is a technical foul
charged directly to the head coach. The player is immediately removed from the

game and Team B is awarded two free throws and the ball. (2-11-5 Note 2)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Bob, I would venture to say that the rules are not being as strictly enforced.

Also, since the other thread on this was closed, I wish to clarify my position. I agree that the penalty is a TF charged to the head coach of the offending team. I simply disagree with assessing it prior to the ball becoming live. Strictly speaking the officials should toss the ball and blow it dead, then assess the T. This is because the NFHS has several play rulings defining what it means "to participate" and the rule prohibits the coach allowing a team member "to participate" while wearing an illegal uniform.

Now most people probably will just charge the T and skip the jumpball, but that doesn't make it proper protocol.

If my post did not make it clear by the modifications, it is clear that they obviously do not seem to care what protocols you are referring to. So even if you or the NF cares about when or what "participating" means, it is irrelevant here (meaning Illinois). Like I said, we do not work for the NF, we work for our state organizations or association. And if they have a ruling or interpretation of how something they want handled they have the right to make that decision to either rectify the situation or do what is necessary to not have unnecessary issues. The issue here has never been when to make this calls as so much information was to give a T before the game similar to what took place years ago in the State Finals.

And now they are completely changing the rule as to what is a legal or illegal uniform. I am sure that schools across the country are also illegal but I doubt their state associations have insisted that any minor infraction be called or else (like they have here, meaning Illinois ).

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm curious if other states are having uniform issues. If not, is it because the uniforms are legal, or becuause the rule is being enforced less than strictly by-the-book.

We get weekly emails from the state office but I've yet to see anything on illegal uniforms.

Quite honestly, it's not something I look for when I take the floor.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Bob, I would venture to say that the rules are not being as strictly enforced.

Also, since the other thread on this was closed, I wish to clarify my position. I agree that the penalty is a TF charged to the head coach of the offending team. I simply disagree with assessing it prior to the ball becoming live. Strictly speaking the officials should toss the ball and blow it dead, then assess the T. This is because the NFHS has several play rulings defining what it means "to participate" and the rule prohibits the coach allowing a team member "to participate" while wearing an illegal uniform.

Now most people probably will just charge the T and skip the jumpball, but that doesn't make it proper protocol.

I think it can also mean "don't penalize the team for team member, if the coach can fix the problem. But, if the problem can't be fixed, and it's obvious that there must be a violation, then penalize as the first act before the ball becomes live."

[berserkBBK]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Bob, I would venture to say that the rules are not being as strictly enforced.

Also, since the other thread on this was closed, I wish to clarify my position. I agree that the penalty is a TF charged to the head coach of the offending team. I simply disagree with assessing it prior to the ball becoming live. Strictly speaking the officials should toss the ball and blow it dead, then assess the T. This is because the NFHS has several play rulings defining what it means "to participate" and the rule prohibits the coach allowing a team member "to participate" while wearing an illegal uniform.

Now most people probably will just charge the T and skip the jumpball, but that doesn't make it proper protocol.

Seems pointless since we would be giving the ball to the non offending team anyway regardless of who wins the jump ball.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by berserkBBK

Seems pointless since we would be giving the ball to the non offending team anyway regardless of who wins the jump ball.

But you must follow protocols or else the NF is going to get really, really, really mad at you.

Peace

[berserkBBK]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But you must follow protocols or else the NF is going to get really, really, really mad at you.

Peace

Ha.
That is a lot of reallys. Nevada must be a stronger state than I thought.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If my post did not make it clear by the modifications, it is clear that they obviously do not seem to care what protocols you are referring to. So even if you or the NF cares about when or what "participating" means, it is irrelevant here (meaning Illinois). Like I said, we do not work for the NF, we work for our state organizations or association. And if they have a ruling or interpretation of how something they want handled they have the right to make that decision to either rectify the situation or do what is necessary to not have unnecessary issues. The issue here has never been when to make this calls as so much information was to give a T before the game similar to what took place years ago in the State Finals.

And now they are completely changing the rule as to what is a legal or illegal uniform. I am sure that schools across the country are also illegal but I doubt their state associations have insisted that any minor infraction be called or else (like they have here, meaning Illinois ).

Peace

I agree. State and local dictates trump NFHS, every time. When the guy who signs my check or gives me games tells me to do it a certain way, I do it that way regardless of how the "protocol" may be read out of the book.

As bob notes, the technical is unavoidable (assuming the coach doesn't have alternate jerseys on the bus), so actually tossing the ball is just an exercise in protocol with no other purpose.

[JRutledge]

IHSA Press Release

This is from the article.

“Traditionally, we follow the NFHS Rulebook without exception, so this is certainly rare that we ask the Board of Directors to grant a rule modification, said IHSA Executive Director Marty Hickman. “However, we believe that this change makes sense and will make the lives of our coaches, student-athletes and officials easier, while also maintaining the integrity of the uniform.”

As a result of the change, schools who have previously received a waiver from the IHSA no longer need to present their waiver to the game officials.

“It’s important to note that today’s changes do not uniformly eliminate illegal uniforms,” added Gibson. “Rather, they allow exceptions to common, but illegal, uniform styles that we believe do not hinder the ability of the game officials and game administration to recognize the uniform number.”

Peace